Apple v. OpenAI trade secrets lawsuit: judge orders early discovery, OpenAI agrees not to use disputed information

Apple's trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI, formally Apple Inc. v. Liu, moved fast on October 13 and 14. On October 13, 2026, US District Judge Edward Davila partly granted Apple's request for expedited discovery, ordering early access to forensic evidence and early depositions. At a hearing the next day, OpenAI agreed not to use the information Apple says former employees took while the case continues, Bloomberg reported, after Davila said he was "highly likely" to grant Apple a preliminary injunction. OpenAI is also fighting back: it alleges that an employee who left OpenAI to rejoin Apple took more than 100 confidential files about an unreleased OpenAI device.

This story is based on Davila's October 13 order (ECF No. 175), the court docket on CourtListener, and reporting by Bloomberg, Bloomberg Law, 9to5Mac, The Register, Quartz and Law360, checked October 16, 2026.

The short version

• The case: Apple Inc. v. Liu, No. 5:26-cv-07078, US District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). Filed July 10, 2026.
• The claims: trade secret misappropriation under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, and breach of contract (the individual defendants' Intellectual Property Agreements with Apple, per the order).
• October 13: in a written order, Davila granted some of Apple's expedited discovery requests, denied others, and deferred a third group.
• October 14: at the hearing on Apple's injunction motion and OpenAI's motion to dismiss, OpenAI agreed not to use the alleged trade secrets, per Bloomberg. No injunction has been reported as issued.
• The counterpunch: OpenAI says a former employee who returned to Apple sent himself more than 100 confidential files. Apple says it found no evidence to support that.

What is Apple suing over?

Apple filed its complaint on July 10, 2026. The docket lists it as a "Complaint for Trade Secret Misappropriation and Breach of Contract." The defendants are Chang Liu, a former Apple hardware engineer who left Apple and joined OpenAI in January 2026; Tang Yew Tan, Apple's former vice president of product design and now OpenAI's chief hardware officer; io Products, the hardware startup OpenAI acquired; and two OpenAI entities, OpenAI Foundation and OpenAI Group PBC.

Apple alleges a coordinated effort to extract confidential information about product design, manufacturing, component technologies, testing methods and its supply chain to "advance OpenAI's efforts to enter the consumer hardware market," Bloomberg reported. Apple says OpenAI used job interviews with Apple candidates to draw out proprietary details, including asking them to bring prototypes and "design artifacts" for "show and tell." It also alleges that Liu used an authentication flaw to reach Apple's network storage after he left and download files. Apple filed its preliminary injunction motion (ECF No. 38) on August 3, together with a motion for expedited discovery.

OpenAI denies the allegations. "OpenAI has no need or desire for Apple's trade secrets," it said, according to Bloomberg. It calls the suit an attempt to discourage employees from leaving and to treat ordinary job interviews as misappropriation. It has also argued that Apple's own security was weak: Apple encouraged work use of personal iCloud accounts, and an authentication error let Liu keep access after he left. OpenAI's motion to dismiss argues that Apple hasn't identified any specific stolen trade secrets.

What did Judge Davila order on October 13?

The order, titled "Order Granting Limited Expedited Discovery" (ECF No. 175), was decided on the papers: Davila vacated the October 14 hearing on the discovery motion. It splits Apple's narrowed requests three ways:

Granted (on an expedited basis):

• forensic images the defendants have already collected in connection with Apple's claims, including those relied on by the defendants' forensic expert;
• documents used to guide or conduct OpenAI's interviews of Apple candidates for its Consumer Hardware Products Group, and documents summarizing those interviews, including "Technical Deep Dive" presentations;
• Liu's LINE messages with Yu-Ting "Alyssa" Peng since January 1, 2026;
• depositions of Liu, Tan and Peng (the order denies, for now, a deposition of a fourth person Apple listed);
• a corporate deposition of OpenAI and io Products on one approved topic: the roles and responsibilities within OpenAI of Tan, Liu, Peng and one other person whose name is redacted.

The defendants have 14 days to respond to the document requests, or five days for material they have already collected. The depositions of Liu, Tan and Peng are due within 30 days after Apple receives those responses.

Denied: fast-track access to OpenAI's R&D on metal finishes, power management and battery functionality for consumer hardware. The order says those requests belong in ordinary merits discovery.

Deferred: requests that rely on Apple's term "Apple Originated Information," which the order calls "amorphous as currently defined." If Apple wants to pursue them, it must confer with the defendants and give the court a more tailored definition within five days of the order. Davila also declined to exempt the early depositions from the usual limits on the number of depositions.

On the risk to evidence, the order calls "well-taken" Apple's argument that forensic artifacts such as logs, metadata and usage records are transient and at risk of being lost. It says that is especially so given a conversation in which Liu and Peng "discussed restoring the Apple-owned devices in their possession." The defendants had responded that Apple doesn't argue anything was actually deleted or restored; the order says the risk of destruction is enough to support early discovery. Bloomberg Law described the same conversation as being about wiping the devices. Peng is named in the order but isn't a defendant.

What happened at the October 14 hearing?

Davila said he was "highly likely" to grant Apple's preliminary injunction, according to Bloomberg as cited by 9to5Mac. OpenAI then voluntarily agreed not to use the trade secrets Apple says were taken while the case proceeds. It also agreed to collect forensic images of devices belonging to 14 employees that "may contain Apple's confidential information." According to the report, the court can enforce that commitment, and OpenAI could face sanctions if it breaks it.

Davila also pushed back on Apple's request to inspect every device and repository that might hold its information, calling it a "huge ask." Apple's lawyer, John Desmarais, said Apple would narrow inspections to a small group of former employees.

No ruling on the injunction or the motion to dismiss had been reported by October 16.

What does OpenAI say the ex-Apple employee took?

In a filing on October 14 in the same court, OpenAI alleged that an employee who joined it from Apple and went back to Apple about six months later sent more than 100 confidential files to his personal accounts before leaving, The Register and Quartz reported. The files allegedly include detailed images of at least one unreleased OpenAI device, engineering and manufacturing data, supplier information and finish specifications. OpenAI says some transfers happened just after midnight in Singapore on June 2, his last day.

OpenAI also alleges that he presented its product plans to Apple's senior leadership, and it asked for time to investigate possible counterclaims. The filing doesn't name him. OpenAI hasn't shown that Apple received or used the material, and Apple says it found nothing to support the claims.

Why it matters

The case is a fight over hardware talent between two companies building AI devices. Apple announced its HomeView smart display on October 13 (our story), and its new Siri AI is built on Apple models developed with Google's Gemini (our Siri explainer). OpenAI said in an October court filing that it "is developing a new family of devices designed for the AI era." For how OpenAI is structured and where hardware fits in, see OpenAI explained.

What's confirmed, reported and uncertain

• Confirmed (docket and the October 13 order, ECF No. 175): the case name and number, the July 10 filing date, the claims, the defendants, Judge Davila, Apple's August 3 injunction motion, and what the order granted, denied and deferred, including the "amorphous" language and the five-day deadline.
• Reported (Bloomberg Law): its description of the Liu–Peng conversation as being about wiping devices; the order itself says "restoring."
• Reported (Bloomberg, October 14): OpenAI's agreement, the 14 employees' devices, and Davila's "highly likely" remark.
• Reported (The Register, Quartz, citing the WSJ and the filing): OpenAI's allegations about the returning employee. Apple disputes them.
• Uncertain: when Davila will rule on the injunction and the motion to dismiss, the formal terms of OpenAI's agreement, Apple's narrowed definition, and whether OpenAI will file counterclaims.