This article may contain affiliate links. Learn more on our Partner Program page.
In the dispute over allegedly stolen trade secrets, Apple will gain access to OpenAI's documents earlier than usual. Judge Edward Davila partially granted the request – however, the research files relating to OpenAI's hardware will remain closed for the time being.
In July, Apple sued OpenAI over the development of AI hardware. The defendants are former Apple employees Chang Liu and Tang Yew Tan, the OpenAI Foundation, the OpenAI Group, and io Products. Apple accuses them of using confidential information about Apple products to advance OpenAI's own hardware.
In August, Apple again pressed for permission to examine witnesses and documents before the regular trial. On October 13, the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on the matter. The decision in case 5:26-cv-07078 (Document 175) partially granted Apple's request. Judge Davila canceled the hearing scheduled for October 14 and ruled without oral arguments.
Key Facts at a Glance
- Apple receives early forensic images, documents relating to OpenAI's job interviews with Apple employees, and chat histories from Chang Liu.
- Liu, Tan and Yu-Ting "Alyssa" Peng must answer questions, as must representatives from OpenAI and io Products.
- Early access to OpenAI's research on metal surfaces, energy management and batteries has been rejected.
- The court has postponed all matters relating to the term "Apple Originated Information"; Apple must define it more narrowly within five days.
What Apple is getting now
The defendants must hand over all forensic images they have already secured relating to the subject matter of the dispute. This includes images examined by OpenAI's own expert. Also included are documents OpenAI used in job interviews with Apple candidates for its consumer hardware group: checklists, guides, scripts, and summaries of the interviews.
Furthermore, Apple has obtained the LINE messaging app conversations between Chang Liu and Yu-Ting „Alyssa“ Peng dating back to January 1, 2026. Liu, Tan, and Peng must testify under oath on narrowly defined topics. OpenAI and io Products must appoint representatives to testify regarding the positions and responsibilities of the individuals involved.
| Deadline | What is due |
|---|---|
| October 18, 2026 | Previously collected material, Apple's narrower definition of "Apple Originated Information" |
| October 27, 2026 | Other documents, 14 days after the decision |
| 30 days after the answers | Interviews with Liu, Tan, Peng and the company representatives |
What Davila rejected
Apple's request for early access to OpenAI's research on metal surfaces, energy management, and batteries for consumer hardware was unsuccessful. According to the ruling, these questions belong in the regular evidentiary hearing. The court also rejected the questioning of a fourth witness.
Davila has postponed the requests based on "Apple Originated Information." He considers the term too vague in its current form. Overall, he still describes Apple's requests as quite broad, and fulfilling them would be correspondingly costly for the defendants.
Davila did not rule in Apple's favor on whether the early interviews would count towards the legal limits for witness interviews. He will review requests for additional interviews later.
Apple is gaining speed, not core strength
I consider the ruling a partial victory, its significance lying primarily in its speed. Apple can now examine how OpenAI conducted conversations with Apple employees and what Liu's chats contain—precisely the points Apple intends to use to substantiate its claim of knowledge poaching. These documents should help support the application for a preliminary injunction, which the ruling does not address.
The part that would be most sensitive for OpenAI, however, remains closed off. An early look at the research on the casing, power supply, and battery would have given Apple insight into the development status of OpenAI's hardware. Davila dismisses this as standard procedure.
Should Apple have been allowed to look at OpenAI's hardware research already, or did Davila draw the line in the right place? Feel free to disagree in the comments.
