Apple has presented what it describes as "shocking evidence" in its ongoing lawsuit against OpenAI, aiming to substantiate its claims that former employees illicitly transferred trade secrets to the artificial intelligence company. This latest development stems from the handover of a former Apple employee’s work laptop, who now works at OpenAI, to investigators earlier this month. The evidence, purportedly found on the device, includes allegations of the use of confidential Apple circuit schematics and a tool that shares a name with an internal Apple engineering application. Apple contends that OpenAI was fully aware of the former employee’s access to sensitive company data and that the employee, along with an OpenAI colleague, actively attempted to destroy evidence when Apple initiated its investigation.
Escalation of Legal Battle: New Evidence Emerges
The legal filings, submitted by Apple, reveal a significant escalation in the trade secret theft allegations against OpenAI. According to the newly presented information, former Apple engineer Chang Liu, who transitioned to OpenAI, is accused of leveraging proprietary Apple technology. Specifically, Apple alleges that Liu utilized a confidential circuit schematic, a critical piece of intellectual property, in his work at OpenAI. Furthermore, the company claims Liu employed a tool bearing the same name as a proprietary internal Apple engineering application, suggesting a direct and intentional repurposing of Apple’s internal development resources.
Apple’s legal team asserts that OpenAI was not merely a passive recipient of this information but was "well-aware" of Liu’s continued access to Apple’s proprietary data. This implies a level of complicity or at least a conscious disregard for the potential misappropriation of trade secrets. The situation reportedly intensified in June of this year when Liu became aware of Apple’s investigation into his activities. At this juncture, Apple claims that Liu enlisted the assistance of Yu-Ting Peng, another OpenAI colleague, in an effort to "destroy evidence." This alleged act of obstruction further bolsters Apple’s argument that the defendants are actively attempting to conceal their involvement in the alleged trade secret theft.
The filing, which includes statements from Apple’s legal counsel, emphasizes that the provided evidence, derived from Liu’s Apple MacBook, is not a result of a "fishing expedition" but rather a direct consequence of the defendants’ limited disclosures. Apple argues that the laptop’s contents demonstrate not only the unauthorized use of its trade secrets but also the active destruction of evidence, thereby underscoring the urgency of its legal claims. While key details within these recent filings are redacted from public view, prior submissions from Apple have offered glimpses into the alleged transgressions. These have included text messages from Liu that, according to Apple, indicated his awareness of his continued access to Apple files, reportedly punctuated with "crying laughing" emojis, which Apple interprets as evidence of his understanding of the unauthorized nature of his actions.
A Timeline of Allegations and Counterarguments
The legal dispute between Apple and OpenAI, initially filed in July 2026, centers on the alleged theft of trade secrets by former Apple employees who subsequently joined OpenAI. The core of Apple’s initial complaint revolved around the accusation that these employees downloaded vast amounts of confidential information before their departure.
July 10, 2026: Apple formally files a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging that former employees stole trade secrets to benefit the AI company. The initial complaint detailed how hundreds of former Apple employees had joined OpenAI, raising concerns about potential intellectual property leaks.
July 13, 2026: TechCrunch reports on Apple’s earlier filings, highlighting specific claims that a former employee, identified later as Chang Liu, exploited a "rare, previously unknown authentication bug" to download confidential files after leaving the company for OpenAI. These filings included evidence such as text messages suggesting the employee was aware of his continued access to Apple data.
Early August 2026: OpenAI issues a public response, defending Chang Liu and characterizing Apple’s allegations as a misinterpretation of "residual access" issues. OpenAI suggests that Apple’s internal systems for managing employee access upon departure are flawed, leading to common problems of former employees retaining access. They maintain that Liu’s access was solely to assist former colleagues with legitimate requests.
Late August 2026: Apple submits its "shocking evidence," including the investigation into Chang Liu’s former work laptop. This new filing alleges the use of specific confidential schematics and tools, and accuses Liu and an OpenAI colleague of attempting to destroy evidence.
OpenAI’s Defense and Apple’s Rebuttal
OpenAI has consistently maintained its position that Chang Liu’s actions were not malicious and that Apple’s internal procedures contributed to any perceived irregularities. In a blog post published earlier this month, OpenAI stated, "Apple now tries to shift the blame to ‘residual access,’ but they also don’t disclose that this is a common issue with Apple which is caused by them failing to properly manage system access when people leave." The company asserted that Liu only accessed Apple files after his departure to assist former colleagues who requested his help.
However, Apple disputes this narrative, presenting a counter-argument that Liu’s continued access was not a result of systemic failures but rather a deliberate exploitation of a security vulnerability. The company claims that Liu "exploited a rare, previously unknown authentication bug" to maintain access to sensitive information. This assertion reframes the issue from one of administrative oversight to one of intentional circumvention of security protocols.
The current filings, with their emphasis on the alleged use of specific schematics and the attempt to destroy evidence, represent a significant challenge to OpenAI’s defense. The redacted nature of these new filings prevents a full public examination, but Apple’s framing of the evidence as "shocking" suggests a high degree of confidence in its claims.
Implications and Legal Recourse
Apple is pursuing two key legal remedies in this case: a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery. The preliminary injunction, if granted, would prohibit OpenAI from developing hardware that utilizes Apple’s proprietary technology while the lawsuit is pending. This indicates Apple’s concern that the alleged stolen trade secrets could be directly applied to competitive product development, potentially causing irreparable harm to Apple’s business interests.
The request for expedited discovery signals Apple’s belief that the case requires swift resolution. A fast-tracked evidence-gathering process would allow Apple to quickly obtain and examine further information from OpenAI, potentially uncovering additional instances of trade secret misappropriation or implicating more individuals. This is particularly relevant given Apple’s initial assertion that over 400 former Apple employees now work at OpenAI, suggesting a broad potential for intellectual property leakage.
The outcome of this legal battle could have significant implications for the highly competitive landscape of artificial intelligence development and the tech industry’s approach to employee mobility. For Apple, it represents a defense of its intellectual property, a cornerstone of its business model. For OpenAI, it is a crucial test of its integrity and its ability to operate without infringing on the intellectual property rights of its competitors. The legal proceedings will likely involve a deep dive into the technical specifics of data access, security protocols, and the definition of trade secrets within the fast-evolving field of AI.
TechCrunch has reached out to OpenAI for comment on Apple’s latest allegations. The response from OpenAI is anticipated to be critical in shaping the public perception and the legal trajectory of this high-stakes dispute. The court’s decision on the preliminary injunction and the pace of discovery will be closely watched by industry observers and stakeholders alike.
About the Author
