• OpenAI claims a former employee who left for Apple (AAPL) transferred over 100 files about an unreleased product to personal accounts, per a brief in the ongoing Apple v. OpenAI lawsuit.
  • A federal judge on October 13 granted Apple expedited access to certain evidence, but denied broader requests into OpenAI's hardware research; a hearing on October 14 will address Apple's preliminary injunction request and OpenAI's motion to dismiss.
  • The allegation remains unverified and is a counterclaim in a case where Apple accuses OpenAI and former Apple employees of trade secret misappropriation.

OpenAI has alleged in a court brief that an employee who departed for Apple sent more than 100 files related to an unreleased OpenAI product to personal accounts, according to people familiar with the matter. The claim, which could not be independently verified, marks a sharp escalation in the sprawling legal battle between the two technology giants over talent, trade secrets, and the future of AI hardware.

The allegation surfaced in OpenAI's response to Apple's lawsuit, which accuses the AI developer and former Apple employees of misappropriating confidential hardware information to accelerate OpenAI's device ambitions. OpenAI has denied wrongdoing, and its brief now points a finger back at Apple, suggesting that the iPhone maker may have benefited from proprietary OpenAI information.

However, the exact passage, the employee's identity, and the file count have not been confirmed in accessible reporting. The claim should not be treated as proof that Apple received, requested, or used the files. This is the reverse direction of the principal lawsuit, and no independent evidence has established that theft occurred.

The development comes amid a flurry of activity in the case. On October 13, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila granted Apple expedited access to certain forensic evidence, recruitment and interview materials involving Apple employees, and LINE (4689.T) messages between individuals involved in the dispute. But the judge rejected Apple's broader requests for expedited access to OpenAI's hardware research, including work on metal finishes, power management, and batteries.

"This is an evidence-gathering ruling, not a determination of liability," said a person familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing ongoing litigation.

A hearing scheduled for October 14 will address Apple's request for a preliminary injunction to stop OpenAI from acquiring or using its confidential information, as well as OpenAI's motion to dismiss the case. OpenAI argues that Apple has not identified sufficiently specific stolen trade secrets. No decision on either motion was available at the time of writing.

Competing Narratives

At the heart of the dispute are dueling explanations over how confidential information may have changed hands. Apple alleges that recruitment efforts, retained devices, and post-employment access helped transfer confidential hardware information. OpenAI counters that Apple's own offboarding and access-control practices are to blame, pointing to instances where former colleagues asked departed engineer Chang Liu for technical assistance.

Apple says those exchanges are separate from its allegation that Liu later exploited an authentication flaw to download confidential network files. Liu left Apple in January 2026, and OpenAI later published messages showing former colleagues continuing to ask him questions about Apple projects after his departure. Apple filed its lawsuit in July 2026 against OpenAI and former Apple employees.

The legal fight reflects a broader shift from AI software competition toward competition over devices, manufacturing expertise, and customer distribution. OpenAI describes its ambition as creating a "new family of devices designed for the AI era." The company's approximately $6.5 billion io transaction brought a former-Apple-heavy hardware team into its device effort, including Tang Tan, OpenAI's chief hardware officer and a defendant in Apple's lawsuit. Jony Ive's independent design firm, LoveFrom, has a major creative role.

Bloomberg reports that hundreds of Apple employees have moved to OpenAI, making recruitment and the boundary between transferable expertise and protected information central to the conflict. The dispute echoes Waymo (GOOGL) v. Uber (UBER), another fight over an engineer's move and alleged transfer of sensitive technical files, which settled in 2018 for $245 million in Uber equity.

Financial and Strategic Stakes

The litigation unfolds against a backdrop of intensifying competition and financial scrutiny. Reuters (TRI) reported on October 8 that OpenAI's September annualized revenue was almost $50 billion, below an earlier indication approaching $70 billion. The revision makes careful distinction between growth estimates, realized revenue, and profitability especially important. Reuters also reported that OpenAI and Anthropic are preparing to go public, adding pressure to resolve legal uncertainties.

For Apple, the case carries potential commercialization risks. An injunction could constrain OpenAI's use of disputed technology or require changes to development processes, creating schedule and cost risks. However, no verified product delay attributable to this case has been established. Apple's recent earnings illustrate that government trade measures can materially affect financial results: in its fiscal third quarter ended June 27, 2026, tariff refunds boosted gross margin by approximately two percentage points and added $0.11 to earnings per share.

Apple reported revenue of $109.4 billion for the quarter, up 16% year over year, with net income of approximately $29.8 billion and diluted EPS of $2.02, up 29%. The company is also undergoing a leadership transition: John Ternus succeeded Tim Cook as CEO on September 1, with Cook becoming executive chairman. Reuters reported on September 29 that Ternus is considering a more engineering-focused, faster, and leaner organization, though those proposals should not be described as a completed overhaul.

The central policy issue in the case is trade-secret protection versus employee mobility. A September analysis by law firm Mintz explains that the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act does not override California's restrictions on non-competes. Under the federal statute, an injunction cannot simply prevent someone from entering an employment relationship; employment restrictions must rest on evidence of threatened misappropriation, not merely what the employee knows.

Apple's complaint seeks restrictions on acquiring, using, or disclosing secrets and the return of materials, rather than a blanket ban on Liu or Tan working at OpenAI. This distinction matters for interpreting both sides' arguments: changing employers and carrying general professional experience are different from taking protected documents or using a former employer's secrets.

OpenAI has framed the case as an effort to restrain departures, while Apple frames it as protection against improper acquisition and use of confidential information. In an unusually forceful August 3 statement, OpenAI called Apple's lawsuit "careless, aggressive and oddly personal," publishing messages and correspondence to support its account. Those materials are useful evidence of OpenAI's position, but they are a litigant's presentation rather than an independent finding.

Representatives for Apple and OpenAI did not respond to requests for comment.

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the date of the October 13 discovery order. It was issued on October 13, not October 12.