Apple urged a federal judge to deny 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 inappropriate extrinsic evidence.”
Apple sued OpenAI in July, accusing the company of running a scheme to extract confidential product information from former Apple employees turned job candidates and new hires. Apple’s lawsuit claims that 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 constituted a protectable trade secret. The company said it was not interested in Apple’s confidential documents because it was “building something entirely new and different from anything else at Apple.”
But in a 32-page opposition brief filed Wednesday, seen by WoozadApple is reiterating several of its key allegations against former engineer Chang Liu and OpenAI hardware chief Tan Yew Tan and says OpenAI’s defenses are factual disputes that should be resolved after discovery, rather than used for termination.
Apple claims 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 make and test key logic boards.
As for Tan, Apple reiterates its allegation that he used internal project codenames to question interview candidates about unreleased Apple products. The company also claims that Tan asked an Apple employee to bring components she had been working on to OpenAI for a “show and explain” session. The components would have included batteries, systems on chips (SoCs), logic boards and shields.
Apple also objects to OpenAI’s dismissal argument that Apple failed to identify a protectable trade secret that the company allegedly stole. Citing the Ninth Circuit’s 2025 Quintara decision, Apple says this information does not need to be disclosed at this time because it is a “factual dispute” that should be resolved later when the evidence is presented, either at summary judgment or trial.
Apple also points out that requiring it to describe its trade secrets specifically in a public filing would amount to publishing the very secrets it is trying to protect.
The rest of the brief argues that OpenAI relies on elements that the judge is not authorized to take into account at this stage. OpenAI included text messages, a website listing Apple’s code names, and a copy of its interview guide to support its motion. Apple argues that none of this has any place because a termination is based on the complaint alone.
Apple also uses one of OpenAI’s own lines against this. OpenAI’s motion called its innocent explanation for Tan’s conduct “at least as plausible” as Apple’s. Indeed, Apple argues that, under Ninth Circuit precedent, the case moves forward rather than being dismissed where two plausible explanations clash.
Judge Edward J. Davila is scheduled to hear the company’s arguments on October 1.
