On July 10, 2026, Apple filed suit against OpenAI and its hardware executives in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging misappropriation of Apple's trade secrets. The 41-page complaint does not depict an isolated incident of a departing employee walking off with files. Apple alleges that OpenAI's job interviews were used as a venue to gather information and physical components from unreleased products, and that manufacturing know-how entrusted to suppliers flowed into OpenAI's device development.
The defendants are former Apple engineer Chang Liu, OpenAI Chief Hardware Officer Tang Yew Tan, OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI Group PBC, and io Products. The complaint contains only Apple's allegations, and the court has not yet made any findings of fact. Still, the structure of the claims is worth examining. Rather than resting merely on the fact that OpenAI hired former employees, Apple frames the case around how OpenAI itself was involved in acquiring and using confidential information—tying the allegations to interview materials, device records, and supplier contacts.
Corporate Storage Accessed After Departure, Over 1,000 Pages of Materials
Chang Liu worked at Apple for eight years as a systems electrical engineer involved in product development before moving to OpenAI in January 2026. According to Apple, Liu did not return his work laptop upon leaving the company. Apple alleges that even after his departure, he retained a device that remained authenticated on Apple's network.
The complaint identifies around February 9 as a turning point. Apple alleges that Liu discovered an authentication flaw that let him access Apple's cloud-based internal storage even after leaving the company, and that over several weeks—while working at OpenAI—he obtained confidential files. Apple says it fixed the flaw after discovering it. Apple also states that it found no evidence that a small number of other affected users accessed confidential information.
The materials Liu allegedly obtained include technical presentations, spreadsheets, and PDFs, totaling more than 1,000 pages. Among them were documents covering manufacturing and inspection procedures for MLBs—multi-layer boards, or main logic boards. Apple alleges these documents included details on how to interpret inspection data, the equipment used, and which defects each piece of equipment could diagnose. At issue is not the product's external form but the process knowledge used to distinguish good units from defective ones during mass production.
Apple further alleges that Liu advised a colleague still employed at Apple at the time on how to copy files while avoiding detection by the security team. According to the complaint, before that colleague interviewed at OpenAI, Liu instructed them on which internal documents about unreleased products to study, and asked them to communicate via LINE to avoid detection. The colleague left Apple in April and was hired by OpenAI. These allegations will presumably be tested through the defendants' responses and discovery going forward.
Allegations That Job Interviews Served as a Channel for Gathering Confidential Information
The other individual defendant, Tang Tan, spent 24 years at Apple, most recently serving as Vice President of Product Design for iPhone and Apple Watch. He is now OpenAI's Chief Hardware Officer. Apple alleges that during job interviews, Tan used Apple's internal development code names and asked about the progress of unreleased products.
The interview instructions described in the complaint go further still. Apple alleges that candidates were asked to present not only slides for a "Technical Deep Dive" but also CAD files, design deliverables, and prototypes. Candidates were reportedly also expected to explain their approach to component selection, the tools used for system integration, and how suppliers were chosen. The complaint also cites instances in which candidates were allegedly instructed to bring actual Apple components—such as batteries, SiPs, and main logic boards—for "show and tell." According to the complaint, one candidate expressed surprise, saying they had not known it was possible to remove components from the office.
The movement of talent and the misappropriation of trade secrets are not the same thing. If a new employer were barred from using the general skills and experience an employee developed at a prior job, changing jobs itself would become untenable. What Apple is trying to draw a line around in this complaint is the distinction between hiring experienced talent and having that talent bring in internal documents or unreleased components.
The allegations do not stop at acquisitions from within Apple. Apple alleges that OpenAI and io had one of Apple's suppliers carry out a multi-step metal finishing process that Apple had developed over many years. According to the complaint, the supplier was bound by confidentiality and usage restrictions with Apple, but OpenAI led the supplier to falsely believe it had Apple's permission. Apple also alleges that OpenAI questioned another supplier about manufacturing designs related to power supplies and batteries, using Apple's internal terminology. If the court finds these allegations to be true, the dispute would extend beyond an employee's device management to the use of the manufacturing network Apple built.
What the Dismissal of the xAI Lawsuit Revealed About the Evidentiary Bar
Just a month ago, a court dismissed a similarly structured lawsuit against OpenAI. xAI sued OpenAI under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, alleging that a former employee had taken source code and other materials before moving to OpenAI. However, the same Northern District of California court dismissed the claims on June 15 without leave to amend, finding that xAI had failed to adequately allege that OpenAI encouraged the removal of the materials or that it acquired or used the information knowing it to be confidential.
In that case, the court found that xAI's allegations alone did not support a reasonable inference of misappropriation by OpenAI. Even though the former employee possessed information from his prior employer, this did not translate into specific allegations that OpenAI acquired, disclosed, or used that information. The temporal proximity of the employee removing materials before changing jobs also was not, in that case, sufficient grounds to establish OpenAI's liability.
Apple's complaint reads as though it were drafted with this gap in mind. It lays out, side by side, Tan's use of internal code names during questioning, interviewers' requests that candidates bring prototypes and components, Liu's acquisition of materials while working on OpenAI's device development, and OpenAI's alleged direction of confidential processes at suppliers—directly alleging OpenAI's knowledge and use of the information. That said, this is merely the narrative Apple has presented in its complaint. OpenAI can contest whether the information qualifies as trade secrets, whether it knew of any acquisition or use, and what damages, if any, Apple actually suffered. The first hurdle will be whether the distinctions from the xAI case give Apple's claims enough specificity to proceed to discovery.
Injunctive Relief Targets Hardware; ChatGPT Agreement Excluded
In July 2025, OpenAI announced that the io Products team had been formally integrated into the company. Jony Ive and LoveFrom remain independent while overseeing design across OpenAI as a whole. Official statements have not disclosed the product category, but describe a vision that goes beyond conventional products and interfaces as having progressed to "concrete designs." It is this consumer hardware development that Apple's lawsuit targets.
The relief Apple seeks includes preliminary and permanent injunctions barring the possession, use, and disclosure of the trade secrets at issue, preservation of evidence, and return of Apple's materials. Apple also seeks damages, disgorgement of unjust enrichment, reasonable royalties, enhanced punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. Federal law permits damages to be enhanced up to double the amount of actual losses and other damages where willful and malicious misappropriation is found. At the same time, the law does not permit barring an employment relationship solely on the basis that someone possesses knowledge. Even if an injunction is granted, it would be limited to the secrets actually proven and their use.
As for the existing relationship between the two companies, the complaint draws a clear boundary. Apple and OpenAI announced in 2024 an integration allowing ChatGPT to be accessed from Siri and other Apple services. But in a footnote, Apple states that this written agreement is unrelated to the present case and is not at issue in this dispute. Apple's requested relief does not include halting the ChatGPT integration. Accordingly, at this stage, there is no basis to expect any immediate changes to ChatGPT functionality on Apple products.
What to watch first is how OpenAI responds to the complaint and how far the court is willing to go in granting evidence preservation orders or preliminary injunctions. If the interview records and supplier process usage that Apple alleges are substantiated, OpenAI's device development effort will face pressure to explain, through the litigation process, the originality of its designs.