Apple Accuses OpenAI of Destroying Evidence as Trade Secrets Fight Escalates

Apple has escalated its trade-secrets lawsuit against OpenAI, accusing the AI company of destroying evidence connected to a former Apple engineer who allegedly took confidential product information. The claim centers on Chang Liu, a former iPhone engineer who now works at OpenAI and whose old Apple laptop was recently provided to investigators by his lawyer.

Apple says the laptop contained evidence that Liu downloaded a confidential circuit schematic, used it in his work at OpenAI, and later took steps to remove or conceal evidence after learning he was under investigation. The allegations appear in a new court filing and add an evidence-preservation dispute to a lawsuit that already threatens to expose the companies’ overlapping hardware ambitions.

Apple filed the lawsuit in July, accusing OpenAI, OpenAI hardware chief Tang Tan, and former Apple employees of coordinating to obtain information about unreleased products, components, drawings, and manufacturing processes. Tan previously served as Apple’s vice president of product design, making the dispute especially sensitive as OpenAI develops consumer hardware.

The case links employee departures to OpenAI’s plans for a device business. Apple claims former staff members carried confidential knowledge into their new jobs, while OpenAI has sought to frame the dispute as a matter of employee access and Apple’s own controls. Legal analysis from Certum Group identifies the central questions as whether Apple took reasonable steps to protect the information, whether the alleged secrets are described precisely, and how confidential material moved during employee departures.

OpenAI is seeking dismissal of Apple’s lawsuit and argues that Apple’s security and offboarding procedures weaken the trade-secrets claims. The company’s position focuses on whether the information received sufficient protection to qualify as legally protected trade secrets, rather than conceding that former employees improperly transferred it.

Newly filed exhibits cited in the litigation describe questions about who retained access to Apple systems, how departing employees handled company files, and whether Apple restricted sensitive information effectively. That defense creates a direct contrast with Apple’s allegations: Apple emphasizes deliberate theft and evidence destruction, while OpenAI emphasizes the legal requirements for secrecy and Apple’s internal controls.

The laptop dispute gives Apple’s case a concrete technical centerpiece. Apple says Liu downloaded a confidential circuit schematic and used it at OpenAI, then destroyed evidence after discovering the investigation. Bloomberg described Apple’s filing as alleging that OpenAI was actively destroying crucial evidence, while TechCrunch focused on the former employee’s laptop and the conduct Apple says investigators found there.

Those allegations remain claims in an active case, rather than findings by a judge. The evidence-preservation issue matters because trade-secrets litigation often turns on digital records, access histories, device images, messages, and the steps companies take when employees leave. A court’s treatment of the laptop and related records will shape whether Apple’s broader account advances toward discovery or faces early limits.

The lawsuit places strain on a relationship that has linked Apple’s products with OpenAI’s technology while the companies pursue different hardware goals. Apple’s complaint portrays OpenAI’s recruiting and device plans as a threat to confidential product development, and the involvement of Tan gives the conflict a direct connection to Apple’s former design leadership.

OpenAI’s dismissal effort raises the stakes before a full trial. If the court accepts arguments about Apple’s security practices, parts of the case could be narrowed. If Apple obtains a preliminary injunction, OpenAI’s hiring, product-development work, or access to disputed information could face restrictions while the litigation continues. Reuters has identified both procedural tracks: Apple is seeking preliminary relief, and OpenAI is seeking dismissal.

The immediate next step is judicial review of Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction alongside OpenAI’s bid to dismiss the case. The court will assess the evidence surrounding Liu, the alleged circuit schematic, Apple’s protection measures, and the handling of electronic records. Those decisions will establish how quickly the dispute proceeds and what information becomes available through discovery.

The case also carries broader consequences for technology companies recruiting specialized engineers. Employee mobility, confidential hardware documents, device imaging, and automated deletion records are now central parts of the fight. Apple is seeking to protect information tied to future products, while OpenAI is defending its ability to build a hardware business without accepting Apple’s characterization of the conduct.