OpenAI filed a motion to dismiss the trade‑secrets lawsuit Apple brought in July, accompanied by newly submitted exhibits. Rather than centering its defense on whether certain former Apple employees accessed specific information, OpenAI contends that Apple’s own security, offboarding, and information‑management practices undermine the company’s allegation that the material at issue qualified as legally protected trade secrets.
Apple’s complaint, filed in July, accuses OpenAI of orchestrating a scheme to obtain confidential hardware information from former Apple engineers. This week Apple asked the court to expedite discovery, saying its internal investigation suggests additional former employees may have been involved in or witnessed the alleged theft of trade secrets.
Evidence and key assertions from OpenAI
OpenAI argues that Apple permitted employees to use personal iCloud accounts for work and failed to revoke those accounts’ access properly when employees left. As part of its filing, OpenAI submitted text‑message records that it says show an Apple manager remained logged into the personal iCloud account of defendant and former Apple engineer Chang Liu after Liu departed the company, using it to transfer files and later seeking his help with technical questions on Apple projects.
OpenAI also accuses Apple of omitting from its original complaint the effects of its own “inexplicable information‑management practices.” According to OpenAI, Apple did not secure its systems adequately upon employee departures, creating confusion and unintended access that Apple now characterizes as theft.
Legal strategy and implications
OpenAI’s defense acknowledges that the argument may resemble a “the door was unlocked, so it wasn’t really stealing” defense, but frames it instead as evidence that former Apple employees were assisting former colleagues rather than stealing secrets. The company further argues that information not protected or secured as trade secrets is less likely to meet the legal standard for trade‑secret protection.
OpenAI also notes that Apple has not identified the precise trade secrets it claims were taken, instead referring to broad, generic categories of the product development process—such as component manufacturing, product testing, vendor and supplier relationships, and distribution channels.
Finally, OpenAI suggests in its filing that Apple is using the lawsuit to hinder a competitor’s progress in AI‑enabled hardware rather than to genuinely protect proprietary information. The motion states, in part: “OpenAI has no use, need or desire for Apple’s trade secrets,” and that OpenAI “is building something entirely new and different from anything at Apple,” while also defending its hiring of former Apple engineers attracted to OpenAI’s work. The filing concludes that Apple should not be allowed to pursue what OpenAI characterizes as a baseless and pretextual lawsuit to compensate for shortcomings in talent retention and AI integration into Apple’s products.
