Apple has urged a federal judge to reject OpenAI's recent motion to dismiss its trade secrets lawsuit, arguing in a new filing that the company's defense depends on "distortion, speculation, and improper extrinsic evidence."
Apple sued OpenAI in July, accusing the company of running a scheme to pull confidential product information out of former Apple employees who became job candidates and new hires. Apple's suit claims more than 400 former Apple employees now work at OpenAI.
Earlier this month, OpenAI's motion argued that Apple in its filing never properly identified what information actually counts as a protectable trade secret. The company said it has no interest in Apple's confidential material because it is "building something entirely new and different from anything at Apple."
But in a 32-page opposition brief filed Wednesday, seen by MacRumors, Apple restates several of its main allegations against former engineer Chang Liu and OpenAI hardware chief Tan Yew Tan, and argues that OpenAI's defenses are fact disputes that should be resolved after discovery, rather than used for dismissal.
Apple says Liu exploited a "rare authentication bug" to access Apple's network storage weeks after joining OpenAI, and downloaded dozens of confidential engineering files, including a presentation on how to manufacture and test main logic boards.
As for Tan, Apple repeats its allegation that he used internal project codenames to question interview candidates about unreleased Apple products. The company also claims that Tan asked one Apple employee to bring components she had worked on to OpenAI for a "show and tell" session. The components are said to have included batteries, system-on-chips (SoCs), logic boards, and shields.
Apple also counters OpenAI's argument for dismissal that Apple has not identified a protectable trade secret that the company allegedly stole. Citing the Ninth Circuit's 2025 Quintara decision, Apple contends that this information does not need to be disclosed yet because it is a "fact dispute" that should be resolved later when evidence has been presented, either at summary judgement or trial.
Apple also points out that forcing it to describe its trade secrets in specific detail in a public filing would amount to publishing the very secrets it's trying to protect.
The rest of the brief argues OpenAI is relying on material the judge isn't allowed to consider at this stage. OpenAI included text messages, a website listing Apple's codenames, and a copy of its interview guide to support its motion. Apple argues that none of it belongs there because a dismiss is based on the complaint alone.
Apple also uses one of OpenAI's own lines against it. OpenAI's motion called its innocent explanation for Tan's conduct "at least equally plausible" as Apple's. Indeed, Apple argues that under Ninth Circuit precedent, the case moves forward rather than being thrown out where two plausible explanations compete.
Judge Edward J. Davila is set to hear the company's arguments on October 1.
