Apple says its trade-secret dispute with OpenAI may extend beyond the two former employees named in its original lawsuit.
In a new court filing, the iPhone maker claims its continuing investigation has identified at least 11 additional former Apple employees who may have witnessed, retained or discussed confidential information connected to OpenAI’s hardware development. Apple is now asking a federal judge to accelerate evidence collection and temporarily prevent OpenAI and several defendants from accessing, using or disclosing the disputed material.
The claims have not been proven, and OpenAI has strongly denied possessing or seeking Apple’s trade secrets. The AI company has also published private messages and email correspondence that it says contradict important parts of Apple’s account.
The legal fight is becoming more than an employment dispute. It represents an increasingly direct confrontation between two companies that remain technology partners while preparing to compete over the future of consumer AI hardware.
Apple Says Its Investigation Is Getting Wider
Apple originally filed its lawsuit on July 10 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The defendants include OpenAI entities, its hardware operation io Products and former Apple employees Chang Liu and Tang Yew Tan. The complaint alleges trade-secret misappropriation and breach of contract under federal and state law.
Liu previously worked as a senior systems electrical engineer at Apple before joining OpenAI. Tan spent more than two decades at Apple, helped develop products including the iPhone and Apple Watch, and now serves as OpenAI’s chief hardware officer.
Apple’s latest filing suggests that the company believes the alleged conduct was not limited to those two individuals. According to TechCrunch’s account of the filing, Apple says 11 other former employees may have relevant knowledge or involvement, in addition to people already referenced in the complaint.
Apple alleges that one former employee met Liu and OpenAI employee Yu-Ting “Alyssa” Peng before Peng’s interview and discussed proprietary information concerning unannounced Apple products. It separately claims another former employee captured screenshots of confidential documents relating to an unreleased device before interviewing with OpenAI.
Most notably, Apple says several former employees contacted the company after the lawsuit was filed to discuss returning Apple-issued work devices they had retained after leaving. That claim does not prove that the devices contained information used by OpenAI, but Apple appears to view the contacts as evidence that its original complaint may have revealed only part of the problem.
Apple Wants Evidence Collected Before It Can Disappear
Alongside its request for a preliminary injunction, Apple has asked the court to permit expedited discovery.
Discovery is the formal process through which parties obtain documents, communications, testimony and other evidence from each other. Apple wants that process to begin faster than it ordinarily might because it argues that continued access to its information could cause irreversible competitive harm.
The company is seeking documents relating to the defendants’ alleged access to Apple’s confidential material. It also wants depositions from Liu, Tan, Peng, another unnamed former Apple employee and corporate representatives from OpenAI and io Products.
Apple’s requested injunction would prevent the named defendants from acquiring, accessing, using or disclosing the information while the litigation continues. The company argues that it will suffer irreparable harm without immediate restrictions.
The judge has not yet accepted Apple’s claims or ordered the requested restrictions. The motions represent Apple’s allegations and proposed remedies, not a court finding that OpenAI or the former employees stole trade secrets.
The Original Case Centred on Chang Liu’s Access
Apple’s complaint accuses Chang Liu of accessing and downloading confidential hardware-related files after leaving Apple for OpenAI.
The company alleges that Liu retained an Apple-issued laptop and used a previously unknown authentication issue to continue reaching restricted systems. Apple says he downloaded dozens of technical files on several occasions during his early months at OpenAI.
OpenAI disputes the significance and context of that activity.
In an unusually detailed public response titled “Apple is getting this wrong”, OpenAI published messages showing Apple employees contacting Liu after his departure and requesting help locating files and answering technical questions. Some messages appear to show current Apple workers asking Liu to clarify product details or direct them toward information stored within Apple’s systems.
OpenAI argues that Liu’s continuing access resulted from Apple’s failure to remove credentials and disconnect accounts properly after his departure. It says the messages demonstrate that some Apple employees knowingly continued relying on him for assistance.
Apple may respond that being asked for limited assistance by former colleagues did not authorise Liu to retain devices, download confidential collections or access unrelated information. The dispute will therefore depend heavily on what files were accessed, why they were accessed, where they were stored and whether anyone at OpenAI received or used them.
Tang Tan Faces Different Allegations
Apple’s allegations against Tang Tan focus less on a single download and more on recruiting practices and the transfer of institutional knowledge.
The company claims Tan encouraged Apple employees interviewing at OpenAI to disclose non-public details about unreleased devices, components, production methods and supplier relationships. The original complaint reportedly alleges that candidates were asked to bring actual Apple components to interviews for technical “show and tell” discussions.
OpenAI says Tan repeatedly instructed his team not to request or use confidential information belonging to other companies. It describes him as a respected product leader and argues that Apple’s allegations misrepresent ordinary recruitment and technical interviewing.
This part of the case may prove difficult because experienced employees are legally permitted to take their skills, judgement and general knowledge to a new employer. They are not permitted to take protected documents, confidential designs or specific trade secrets.
The court may eventually need to distinguish between expertise Tan developed during 24 years at Apple and information that legally remained Apple’s property after he left.
OpenAI Says Apple’s Story Contains Serious Errors
OpenAI has gone beyond issuing a conventional denial. Its public statement accuses Apple of filing a lawsuit that is careless, aggressive and personal.
The AI company says Apple initially claimed it contacted OpenAI in February without receiving a response. OpenAI then published emails indicating that Apple’s outside lawyer contacted the wrong individual after confusing similar surnames and accidentally claimed to have held a phone conversation with OpenAI’s general counsel. Apple’s lawyer later acknowledged that an email had been sent to the wrong recipient.
OpenAI also says Apple never presented the specific allegations now contained in the lawsuit during those earlier communications. According to OpenAI, Apple said it was resolving the issue and then did not raise the matter again for approximately five months before filing suit.
These errors do not automatically disprove Apple’s core trade-secret allegations. They could, however, weaken Apple’s portrayal of OpenAI as unresponsive or unwilling to cooperate.
OpenAI says it does not have and does not want Apple’s trade secrets. It argues that the requested injunction is unnecessary and based on misleading information.
The Dispute Is Really About the Next Major Computing Platform
Apple and OpenAI became high-profile partners when Apple integrated ChatGPT into its software ecosystem. The relationship now exists alongside growing competition.
OpenAI has expanded from language models and online services into physical products. Its hardware effort involves io Products, the design and engineering company associated with former Apple design chief Jony Ive. OpenAI acquired io in a transaction valued at nearly $6.5 billion and has said it is pursuing new ways for consumers to interact with AI beyond traditional screens and software interfaces.
Apple has reason to take that effort seriously. A successful AI-first device could reduce the importance of smartphones, conventional apps and graphical operating systems—areas in which Apple has built its most valuable commercial advantages.
That does not establish that OpenAI stole anything. It explains why Apple may regard seemingly narrow hardware documents, component details or manufacturing methods as strategically important.
Apple’s complaint effectively argues that OpenAI attempted to accelerate its hardware programme using knowledge acquired through former employees. OpenAI’s defence is that it hired experienced professionals but neither requested nor used protected Apple information.
Employee Mobility Is Becoming a Major AI Industry Risk
The case also illustrates the complications created by aggressive hiring across the technology industry.
Artificial intelligence companies are recruiting engineers, designers and executives from established hardware businesses because building a consumer device requires more than training a model. It requires expertise in batteries, thermal design, antennas, materials, manufacturing, supply chains, reliability and mass production.
When entire groups move between competitors, the boundary between portable expertise and protected information can become difficult to maintain. An employee may remember how a technical problem was solved without carrying a document. Another may retain files unintentionally through synced cloud storage. A third may deliberately take confidential material to gain influence at a new company.
The law treats those situations differently, but identifying which occurred usually requires forensic examination of devices, accounts, communications and file histories. Apple’s request for faster discovery is intended to obtain exactly that type of evidence.
The Court Has Not Decided Who Is Right
Apple’s latest motion significantly expands the public scope of the dispute, but it remains an allegation.
The company has not publicly demonstrated that the 11 additional former employees supplied trade secrets to OpenAI or that OpenAI incorporated Apple information into a product. OpenAI, meanwhile, has produced messages that challenge Apple’s framing but do not necessarily answer every allegation concerning retained devices, screenshots or downloaded files.
The most consequential evidence may remain private until discovery begins. Device records could show what was accessed and copied. Internal OpenAI communications could reveal whether confidential material was requested, rejected or circulated. Product-development records could indicate whether Apple information influenced the design of OpenAI’s upcoming hardware.
Until then, the case presents two sharply different narratives. Apple describes a wider pattern of former employees carrying valuable secrets into a direct competitor. OpenAI describes a poorly investigated lawsuit built partly on Apple’s own access-control failures and communication mistakes.
The ruling on Apple’s injunction request could provide the first indication of how seriously the court views the claimed risk. The larger battle over whether OpenAI’s hardware programme benefited from Apple’s confidential technology is likely to take much longer.
