Apple has asked a federal judge for a preliminary injunction to stop OpenAI from developing any AI device or product based on Apple’s alleged trade secrets, marking a sharp escalation in a lawsuit that could reshape the relationship between two of the most valuable technology companies on Earth.
The filing, made in the Northern District of California case, also reveals that Apple’s internal investigation has uncovered 11 additional former employees beyond the two originally named — senior systems engineer Chang Liu and Chief Hardware Officer Tang Yew Tan — who may have been witnesses or participants in what Apple characterises as a coordinated effort to take confidential information to OpenAI.
🔍 THE BOTTOM LINE
Apple is no longer just suing. It is asking the court to actively block OpenAI’s hardware ambitions while the case plays out, and it claims the misconduct is wider than initially alleged. OpenAI’s response — publishing private messages and accusing Apple of emailing the wrong person — turns this into a public relations fight as much as a legal one. The outcome could determine whether OpenAI’s device partnership with Jony Ive proceeds unimpeded or gets frozen by court order.
Eleven More Names, and Screenshots Before Interviews
According to TechCrunch’s reporting, Apple’s filing describes specific behaviour it says goes beyond the original two defendants. One former employee allegedly met with Liu and OpenAI employee Yu-Ting Peng before Peng’s interview at OpenAI, and during that meeting discussed Apple proprietary information about unannounced products. Another former employee allegedly took screenshots of confidential Apple documents relating to an unannounced product before an interview at OpenAI.
Apple also claims that after it filed its original complaint in July, multiple former Apple employees now working at OpenAI reached out to discuss returning Apple-issued work devices they had kept after leaving — behaviour Apple interprets as evidence of broader involvement.
The company is asking the court for expedited discovery — faster-than-normal evidence collection — arguing it has good cause to suspect others beyond the named individuals were involved in taking its intellectual property. This builds on our earlier reporting on Apple’s original trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI, which ended what was once the AI industry’s most celebrated partnership.
OpenAI’s Counter-Narrative: Emails, Wrong Names, and “Residual Access”
OpenAI did not respond quietly. In a blog post titled “Apple is getting this wrong,” the company published what it says are internal messages and email correspondence that contradict Apple’s version of events.
The response makes several specific claims. First, OpenAI says Apple’s outside lawyers emailed the wrong person when they first contacted OpenAI in February — confusing two similar Asian surnames — and only acknowledged this error after OpenAI pointed it out. Second, OpenAI says Apple claimed to have had a discussion with OpenAI’s General Counsel about the matter, a claim Apple has now conceded never happened. Third, OpenAI alleges Apple never raised the specific allegations in the lawsuit during any of its communications, and in fact told OpenAI they were “resolving any issues” — then went silent for five months before suing.
Perhaps most pointedly, OpenAI addresses the “residual access” issue — Apple’s claim that Liu accessed Apple confidential information after leaving the company. OpenAI published messages it says show Apple employees reaching out to Liu after his departure, asking him to help locate files and information. OpenAI characterises the residual access as an Apple security problem — a failure to properly manage system access when employees leave — rather than evidence of intentional theft.
“We do not have, nor want, any of their trade secrets,” OpenAI’s statement reads. “We’re much more interested in building innovative products and technologies that push the frontier.”
The io Problem: Jony Ive’s Device Startup in the Crosshairs
The injunction request targets not just OpenAI but also io, the device startup co-founded by Apple’s former lead designer Jony Ive, who is now working with OpenAI on what has been described as an AI hardware project. Apple’s case is, at its core, an attempt to prevent whatever Ive and OpenAI are building from incorporating Apple technology — and the preliminary injunction is the mechanism to freeze that work while the litigation proceeds.
This matters beyond Apple and OpenAI. If the court grants the injunction, it would set a precedent that trade secrets cases involving AI talent poaching can halt product development — not just extract damages after the fact. Every AI lab hiring from competitors would need to reckon with the possibility that a court order, not just a settlement, could stop their projects cold.
What an Injunction Would Actually Do
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. To get one, Apple needs to show three things: that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its trade secrets claims, that it will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, and that the balance of equities favours Apple. OpenAI’s publication of internal messages appears designed to undermine the first prong — if Apple’s factual narrative is contested, the court is less likely to grant emergency relief.
But Apple’s filing also signals something subtler: the company is building a pattern. Two named defendants became 13 potential participants. Screenshots before interviews, meetings to discuss proprietary information, retained work devices — each detail adds to a picture Apple wants the court to see as systemic rather than isolated. Whether that picture holds up under scrutiny is what the expedited discovery would reveal.
The Broader Industry Question
This case sits at the intersection of two trends we have been tracking. The first is AI talent poaching as a competitive weapon — the movement of senior hardware and design staff from established companies to AI labs. The second is the increasing willingness of Big Tech to litigate over AI-related intellectual property rather than treat it as a gentleman’s disagreement.
When Apple first sued in July, the question was whether this was a warning shot or a genuine legal war. The injunction filing answers that question. Apple is not posturing. It is asking a federal court to stop a competitor’s product development — a step that, if granted, would escalate this from a costly lawsuit to an existential threat to OpenAI’s hardware ambitions.
❓ FAQ
What is a preliminary injunction? A court order that requires a party to stop doing something — in this case, stop OpenAI from using alleged Apple trade secrets — while the lawsuit is still being decided. It is an emergency measure, not a final ruling, but it can effectively freeze a product’s development for months or years.
Why is OpenAI publishing internal messages? OpenAI is making its case in public as well as in court. By publishing messages that it says show Apple employees asking Liu for help after he left, OpenAI is trying to undermine Apple’s narrative that Liu’s access was malicious rather than a consequence of Apple’s own security practices.
What does this mean for the Jony Ive device? If the injunction is granted, OpenAI and io could be blocked from developing products that incorporate Apple technology — potentially delaying or killing the device. If denied, the case proceeds to normal litigation, which could take years.
Has anything like this happened before in AI? Trade secrets cases between tech companies are common, but preliminary injunctions that halt AI product development are rare. The closest parallel is the Waymo v. Uber case, where Anthony Levandowski was accused of taking self-driving trade secrets to Uber — a case that ended with a settlement but also involved criminal charges.
🔍 THE BOTTOM LINE
Apple’s injunction filing is the clearest signal yet that this is not a lawsuit designed to settle quietly. The company is asking a court to freeze OpenAI’s hardware work, expanding the scope to 11 additional employees, and pressing for expedited discovery — a combination that signals confidence in its evidence. OpenAI’s decision to publish internal messages and publicly call the lawsuit “careless” is a gamble that public opinion and the court record will diverge from Apple’s framing. The real question is whether the pattern Apple is assembling — screenshots, pre-interview meetings, retained devices — will survive the scrutiny of expedited discovery, or whether OpenAI’s counter-evidence will deflate it before it reaches a judge.
