The written submissions in the lawsuit concerning allegedly stolen Apple secrets have concluded. In their final written statement before the oral hearing, the defendants challenged Apple's account on a point that had previously gone unnoticed: a time zone. On October 1, a federal judge in San Jose will decide whether the lawsuit will proceed.
OpenAI, the device company io Products, and the two former Apple employees Chang Liu and Tang Yew Tan have submitted their final statement regarding the dismissal motion. They are requesting a preclusive dismissal, which would prevent Apple from raising the same claims again later. This follows Apple's reply, in which the company defended its allegations against the dismissal motion. The submission is filed as a Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss dated August 26, 2026, in case number 5:26-cv-07078-EJD (ND Cal.).
Key Facts at a Glance
- The defendants request dismissal with preclusive effect – Apple could not raise the same claims again.
- The main accusation: Apple has still not specifically named the alleged trade secrets.
- According to the written submission, a central accusation is based on an incorrectly converted time reference.
- The defendants claim that Apple employees themselves downloaded the files in question.
- The trial will take place on October 1st before Judge Edward J. Davila in San José.
The accusation: a chain that is never broken
The defendants base their claim on a formal point. According to US trade secret law, a plaintiff must connect three things, relating to the same information and the same defendant: what the secret specifically is, why it is eligible for protection, and how a specific defendant unlawfully obtained, disclosed, or used it.
Apple fails to close this chain of evidence in either its complaint or its response. The alleged secrets remain vague categories and catch-all terms – the complaint refers to component architecture, confidential test data, proprietary manufacturing processes, and supplier relationships. Two of the examples cited by Apple are mere project abbreviations, and another is the name of a supplier whose role is already publicly known.
A second formal objection concerns the subsequently submitted list: Apple only provided a more detailed description with the application for a preliminary injunction. The court may not consider these documents when assessing whether the statement of claim is coherent.
Where the time zone turns the accusation around
The most striking point in the written submission concerns a message that Apple cites as incriminating. According to Apple, Liu wrote within hours of leaving the company that he still had a computer through which he could access confidential documents.
The defendants point out that Apple's own expert dated the message January 22, 2026, Pacific Time, but it appears eight hours later in Coordinated Universal Time. According to this interpretation, the message was created while Liu was still employed by Apple and was in the company's offices – and he sent it to an Apple employee on her work device.
The fact that departing employees kept their devices was also a consequence of Apple's own practice of escorting departing employees out of the building on the same day, instead of granting the usual transition period.
Who is said to have downloaded the files
The second set of allegations is also countered by the written submission. Apple's login credentials for Liu remained active after his departure; Apple employees themselves used these credentials to access files, and a former supervisor downloaded content from Liu's private iCloud storage for Apple. The comment quoted by Apple, that it was funny the access still worked, was made to an Apple employee on a work device – not behavior consistent with covert operations.
The defendants derive a further attack from this: Anyone claiming to have adequate protective measures in place cannot simultaneously ask a former employee to retrieve confidential documents for the company. Apple also does not deny that it is common practice to allow employees to use their private iCloud accounts for company work.
The second defendant's case concerns a request to applicants to bring components to job interviews. The written submission interprets the corresponding message as explicitly referring to delivered and therefore publicly available parts.
When your own code undermines the protection of confidentiality
In a footnote, the defendants cite an event from this month against Apple: One of the code names that Apple claims is a trade secret in the proceedings had recently become public because Apple had included it in its own software update. Indeed, a pre-release version of macOS Tahoe 26.7 contained identifiers for unreleased home devices, Macs, and iPads, which circulated within hours.
The objection is not directed at the leak itself, but at its consequence: A codename that is leaked via a delivered update is hardly suitable as evidence that a company has taken adequate precautions to maintain secrecy.
Five months of silence as an argument
Regarding the issue of damages, the defendants refer to the background of the case. Apple has not demonstrated that it lost a sale, a supplier, a customer, or an employee, nor that a product was delayed or became more expensive.
Furthermore, there was the sequence of events in February: Apple's lawyers contacted OpenAI, confusing two surnames and therefore writing to the wrong person. After the error was clarified, Apple apologized, stated that the matter was being investigated, and then took no further action for five months. This is not the behavior of a company that fears irreparable damage.
Overview of the current status of the proceedings
With this written submission, the exchange regarding the dismissal motion is concluded. The process leading up to this point, in brief:
| Date | Step |
|---|---|
| July 10, 2026 | Apple files the lawsuit |
| August 6, 2026 | The defendants request dismissal. |
| August 19, 2026 | Apple presents its response |
| August 26, 2026 | The defendants answer in conclusion |
| October 1, 2026 | Oral hearing, 9 a.m. local time |
Apple is simultaneously pursuing two other motions: a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from accessing the disputed information, and an expedited evidentiary hearing, which the company recently reiterated its request. Both depend on whether the lawsuit is upheld. The case is being heard before Judge Edward J. Davila; a trial date has not yet been set.
Why the October deadline is more important than an interim step
Two things are noteworthy about this situation. Firstly, the substance of Apple's allegations is not yet being addressed in the court proceedings – the sole focus is on whether the complaint meets the formal requirements. Secondly, the strongest exculpatory arguments of the opposing side originate from Apple's own company: an access that was not deactivated, a tolerated iCloud practice, and a timeframe mentioned in the expert opinion of their own consultant.
Our expectation: Even if the lawsuit is upheld in its core elements, the court is likely to order Apple to specify the secrets more precisely. A complete dismissal with preclusive effect would be the harshest possible outcome; we anticipate that Apple will be given an opportunity to rectify the situation. If you're waiting for a court ruling before OpenAI's first device is released, you'll need patience: Seven weeks after the lawsuit was filed, the case is still uncertain whether it will even go to trial.
The first crucial decision will be made on October 1st.
Until then, the situation remains unchanged: accusations on one side, a request for complete dismissal on the other, and a court that has not yet commented on either point.
Does the argument that Apple hasn't specifically identified the alleged secrets convince you – or is this just the usual reflex of a defense trying to stall the trial? Let us know in the comments how you rate the chances of the dismissal motion.
- Apple retains access to files from 14 US authorities
- Sneaky Sasquatch: Crossover with Subway Surfers+ starts
- Apple Event on September 9: iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone Ultra
