admin The lawsuit, filed on Friday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, marks a sharp escalation in tensions between companies that began working together two years ago. Apple alleges that OpenAI systematically obtained confidential product, manufacturing and supplier information by recruiting staff who had worked on some of its most closely guarded technologies.
OpenAI rejected the central accusation. The company said it had no interest in the trade secrets of other businesses and remained focused on developing technology intended to benefit users. The defendants have not yet filed their formal responses to Apple’s complaint, and the allegations have not been tested in court.
The case names Chang Liu, a former senior systems electrical engineer at Apple, and Tang Yew Tan, a former vice-president of product design who spent 24 years at the iPhone maker. Tan, who worked on products including the iPhone, Apple Watch and iPod, is now OpenAI’s chief hardware officer.
Apple claims Liu retained a company-issued laptop after leaving and exploited an authentication vulnerability to enter its internal network. He allegedly downloaded dozens of confidential files connected to hardware development while preparing to join OpenAI earlier this year.
Tan is accused of sending himself confidential information about suppliers and internal industry assessments before his departure. Apple also alleges that he encouraged job candidates who were still employed by the company to bring physical components to OpenAI interviews for demonstrations and technical discussions.
The complaint also names OpenAI Foundation, its commercial arm OpenAI Group PBC and io Products, the hardware venture associated with former Apple design chief Jony Ive. OpenAI acquired io Products last year in a transaction valued at nearly $6.5 billion, placing Ive and several former Apple designers at the centre of its effort to create a new category of artificial intelligence device.
OpenAI has disclosed few details about the planned product. Executives have described the project as an attempt to move beyond established screens, applications and interfaces, while analysts expect it to provide users with a direct way to interact with ChatGPT. The company’s chief financial officer, Sarah Friar, said in April that consumer hardware was expected towards the end of this year.
Apple argues that the hardware programme rests partly on information taken from its own development operations. It is seeking financial damages and an injunction preventing OpenAI and the other defendants from possessing, disclosing or using the disputed material.
The iPhone maker said it contacted OpenAI in February after identifying signs that confidential information might have reached the artificial intelligence company. Apple claims the approach received no response, prompting it to broaden its internal investigation and uncover what it describes as a pattern of theft involving former employees.
More than 400 former Apple workers are now employed by OpenAI, the lawsuit says. Hiring employees from a competitor is generally lawful in California, where restrictions on workers moving between companies are limited. Apple’s case is therefore likely to depend on whether it can prove that identifiable trade secrets were taken, transferred or used, rather than relying only on the movement of personnel.
The dispute threatens a partnership unveiled in 2024, when Apple integrated ChatGPT into its operating systems. The arrangement allows Siri to direct some user questions to OpenAI’s chatbot and gives device owners access to ChatGPT without leaving Apple’s software environment.
That relationship has become more complicated as OpenAI develops hardware that could compete for consumer attention with the iPhone. Apple has also expanded its work with other artificial intelligence developers, including Google, as it rebuilds Siri and attempts to close the gap with rivals in generative AI.
The lawsuit adds another legal obstacle to OpenAI’s hardware strategy. The company and Ive have also faced trademark and trade-secret litigation from technology start-up iyO, which has challenged the name of the io venture and alleged misuse of confidential product information.
