Apple Sues OpenAI, Ex-Employees Over Alleged Theft of Hardware Trade Secrets — Lawsuit Filed

Apple has filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California accusing OpenAI, hardware startup io Products, and several former Apple employees of systematically misappropriating confidential engineering, manufacturing, and supply‑chain information to accelerate competing consumer hardware efforts.

The complaint seeks damages, preservation and return of allegedly stolen materials, and preliminary and permanent injunctions to bar use or disclosure of the asserted trade secrets.

Apple says the case invokes the Defend Trade Secrets Act and breaches of confidentiality, and stresses the claims are unrelated to its commercial agreement with OpenAI to integrate ChatGPT into Apple products.

According to the complaint, the alleged scheme began after former Apple engineer Chang Liu left Apple in January 2026 to join OpenAI.

Apple Sues OpenAI, Ex-Employees

Apple claims Liu retained an Apple‑issued device and discovered an authentication vulnerability that allowed continued access to a cloud‑hosted storage repository containing confidential engineering files, project documentation, and technical data.

Apple alleges Liu downloaded dozens of files and a compilation exceeding 1,000 pages, including detailed documents on multi‑layer main logic board manufacturing and testing workflows, diagnostic equipment, captured test data, and operational analyses.

The suit further alleges Liu shared links and technical materials with former Apple employee Yu‑Ting Alyssa Peng and coached her on evading internal security controls and copying files prior to her joining OpenAI in April 2026.

A central allegation is that OpenAI’s recruiting and interviewing processes were used to solicit proprietary information from Apple candidates.

Apple asserts that interview panels required “Technical Deep Dive” presentations and asked applicants to provide CAD designs, prototype details, supplier communications, component selection rationales, manufacturing workflows, and even physical Apple components (batteries, logic‑board modules, housings).

Apple alleges interviewers used internal codenames and proprietary terminology to probe knowledge of unreleased projects, and that Tang Tan, a former Apple executive now named as OpenAI’s chief hardware officer, leveraged internal identifiers and directed “show‑and‑tell” sessions during recruitment.

The complaint also contends that OpenAI and io Products used proprietary knowledge to engage trusted suppliers and manufacturing partners.

Apple alleges at least one partner subject to confidentiality obligations adopted Apple’s proprietary metal‑finishing processes without authorization.

Overall, Apple claims the accused trade secrets encompass circuit and system designs, power‑management techniques, custom manufacturing equipment, component specifications, testing and failure analysis data, development roadmaps, and global supply‑chain coordination, a combined, systems‑level knowledge set that Apple says would allow rivals to bypass years of R&D and accelerate time‑to‑market at lower cost.

From a cybersecurity and IP‑protection perspective, the lawsuit highlights familiar but persistent risks: inadequate offboarding and identity revocation, insufficient endpoint and cloud access controls, weak segmentation of sensitive repositories, and lack of continuous monitoring for abnormal downloads or privilege misuse.

Apple specifically points to an authentication flaw enabling post‑employment access, underscoring the need for immediate deprovisioning of credentials, multi‑factor enforcement on critical storage, fine‑grained access controls, and immutable audit trails that can detect exfiltration patterns and prove chain of custody for evidence.

Apple seeks injunctive relief to bar the defendants from acquiring, possessing, using, or disclosing its confidential information, together with orders to preserve emails, documents, metadata, and directory structures and to return all copies of alleged trade secrets.

Beyond legal remedies, the case serves as a reminder to enterprises that technical controls, rigorous offboarding processes, and proactive supplier risk management remain essential to protecting high‑value intellectual property in an era where cloud repositories and hybrid work create new exfiltration vectors.