This article may contain affiliate links. Learn more on our Partner Program page.
In the dispute over trade secrets, OpenAI turned the tables and accused Apple of obtaining confidential device data through a returning employee. Apple's response has now been filed in court. It is brief, contains a precise timeline, and includes a clear accusation against OpenAI.
On October 14, Apple filed a submission regarding document 177 in case 5:26-cv-07078-EJD with the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose. In this submission, Apple responds to a motion by OpenAI, in which OpenAI itself raises allegations against Apple: An employee who moved from Apple to OpenAI and later back to Apple allegedly took confidential documents relating to at least one unreleased OpenAI device. Apple's response is not a separate motion, but rather a statement with two attachments.
Key Facts at a Glance
- OpenAI informed Apple of the allegation on October 9th, and Apple began an investigation that same afternoon.
- On October 12, Apple informed OpenAI in writing that it had not found any confidential OpenAI information and requested more details.
- According to Apple, OpenAI did not respond but filed the accusation in court without warning.
- Apple considers the process unrelated to the actual lawsuit and intends to continue working with OpenAI to clarify the matter.
Five days between notification and court file
Apple's written submission presents a timeline that omits OpenAI's input. According to this submission, OpenAI contacted Apple on Friday, October 9th, at 2 PM. Apple reportedly launched an investigation that same afternoon.
Three days later, on Monday, October 12, Apple wrote to OpenAI stating that it had not found any confidential OpenAI information and requested more precise details to enable a more targeted search. Both letters are attached to this brief.
| Date | Occurrence |
|---|---|
| Fri, October 9 | OpenAI informs Apple of the allegation; Apple begins an investigation |
| Mon, 12 October | Apple reports OpenAI: no OpenAI information found, please provide more details |
| until October 14th | OpenAI submits the allegation to the court as document 176 |
| Wed, October 14 | Apple responds with document 177; the hearing takes place on the same day |
Apple: No connection to the actual lawsuit
The core of the response is a sentence with which Apple intends to extricate OpenAI's accusation from the ongoing proceedings. Apple's lawyers write:
However, none of this has anything to do with the present proceedings.
Apple is suing two former employees, OpenAI and io Products, alleging that OpenAI misused confidential Apple information. The claim against the returning employee, however, concerns potential OpenAI information held by Apple. Apple also criticizes OpenAI for filing the lawsuit without prior notification, despite the request for more detailed information being explicitly stated.
Apple has not denied the employee's transfer. The written statement merely states that its own search has so far yielded no results and announces that it will continue the investigation together with OpenAI.
Why timing reveals more than content
I find the sequence of events more revealing than the allegations themselves. OpenAI's submission landed in court the same week that Judge Edward J. Davila was hearing Apple's application for a preliminary injunction. At that hearing, OpenAI voluntarily agreed not to use the trade secrets claimed by Apple. In this context, a counter-accusation that doesn't address an open question strikes me more as a counterweight in the ongoing dispute than as the start of a separate legal proceeding.
OpenAI has not yet filed a countersuit. As long as that remains the case, the allegation only marginally affects Apple's lawsuit. I expect that Davila will not consider it in his decision regarding the preliminary injunction because it has nothing to do with Apple's claims.
A legal dispute with two sides
The progress of the proceedings depends initially on the deadlines of October 18 and 27 from the order for accelerated evidence gathering, as well as the pending decision on the injunction. Meanwhile, the dispute concerning the returning man continues, and its reliability hinges on the information that OpenAI has so far failed to provide.
Do you consider OpenAI's accusation a serious case or a tactic surrounding the hearing? Let us know in the comments how you interpret the timing of the submission.
