Apple adds more allegations to its trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
Apple's trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI centred on allegations that former Apple senior systems electrical engineer Chang Liu took confidential company files with him when he joined OpenAI's hardware team, with Apple presenting forensic evidence from a laptop Liu used after leaving to support its case. The dispute mattered because it highlighted concerns about proprietary knowledge moving between Apple and AI firms building competing hardware, and tested how far companies can go in policing departing staff and their new employers through litigation.
Apple's filing, submitted in support of a bid for expedited discovery, alleged Liu used access to Apple's third-party cloud storage to download "dozens of confidential Apple files", including a circuit schematic it says he used to run simulations for OpenAI, and that his software use referenced tools with names identical to proprietary Apple engineering systems. Apple further claimed that once Liu learned he was under internal investigation, he asked an OpenAI colleague to "restore" Apple-issued devices in an apparent bid to erase evidence. The case had already expanded earlier in August to cover 11 former employees accused of sharing trade secrets, while OpenAI dismissed Apple's claims as "careless, aggressive and oddly personal" and denied any wrongdoing.
- Apple's lawsuit alleges ex-engineer Liu took files to OpenAI's hardware team
- Laptop evidence reportedly shows downloaded schematics and device "restore" attempt
- OpenAI denies wrongdoing, calls Apple's claims "oddly personal"
New here? Start with this
Apple and OpenAI are locked in a legal dispute over trade secrets, centred on a former Apple engineer, Chang Liu, who moved to work on hardware at OpenAI. Apple filed the lawsuit earlier this year, accusing Liu and, since August, a total of 11 ex-employees of taking confidential company information with them when they left. OpenAI denies any wrongdoing and has criticised Apple's approach to the case.
At the heart of the case is Apple's claim that Liu downloaded confidential company files, including hardware design documents, after joining OpenAI, and then used them in his new role. Apple is a highly secretive company when it comes to unreleased hardware, so allegations that its internal designs or engineering tools may have reached a rival are taken seriously within the tech industry.
The case also reflects a wider trend of AI companies like OpenAI hiring experienced hardware engineers as they look to build their own physical devices, moving beyond software. That has heightened concerns among established tech firms about staff taking specialist knowledge with them, and the dispute is being watched as an early test of how such trade secrets claims play out in the courts.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Apple has a legitimate interest in protecting years of proprietary hardware engineering investment, and the forensic details it has presented, including alleged downloads of confidential schematics, use of internally-named tools, and an attempt to have devices wiped after an investigation began, are the kind of specific, verifiable evidence courts expect before granting expedited discovery. Companies have a right, and arguably a duty to shareholders, to pursue departing employees who may have unlawfully carried confidential material to a competitor, and doing so also protects the broader workforce by deterring genuine misconduct rather than punishing ordinary career moves. Seeking expedited discovery is a proportionate legal step, not an accusation of guilt, and allows the facts to be tested properly.
The case against
OpenAI and defenders of employee mobility would argue that trade secrets litigation can be wielded, intentionally or not, to intimidate former staff and discourage healthy competition in a fast-moving industry where hardware and AI talent naturally circulates between firms. Engineers are entitled to use general skills, knowledge and experience gained at a previous employer, and allegations at the discovery stage are Apple's own characterisation of the evidence, not proven findings, so expanding the claims to eleven former employees risks appearing more like a broad deterrent than a narrowly targeted response to specific wrongdoing. There is also a reasonable concern that such suits, even if ultimately unsuccessful, can chill innovation and free movement of talent by making departing employees and their new employers wary of ordinary, lawful hiring and collaboration.