The tech giants are at it again, squabbling over stolen trade secrets and employees switching jobs. In continuation of an ongoing lawsuit, Apple has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against OpenAI, in hopes of barring the two former employees and the AI company from accessing, acquiring, using, or disclosing alleged confidential information that rightfully belongs to the iPhone maker.
The company has also filed a motion for expedited discovery, which includes the furnishing of documents relating to this alleged theft of its data. This was reportedly done so Apple can better understand the nature and extent of the misappropriations of trade secrets, take additional actions necessary to its case, and provide relevant data to the courts.
Apple filed its initial lawsuit last month, accusing two of its former employees of misappropriating its trade secrets and taking up employment at OpenAI to funnel confidential data into the company’s operations towards its attempts to expand on its promise of AI hardware. The outcome of this high-profile case isn’t just relevant to Apple and OpenAI, but could result in many learnings for employers and their management teams across the country, as they navigate confidentiality and control over employees.
Apple’s preliminary injunction bid against OpenAI serves as a reminder for HR to revisit the complexities of managing employee mobility and protecting confidential data. (Image: Pexels)
Apple Files Motion for Preliminary Injunction Against OpenAI as Its Lawsuit Continues to Shake the World of Tech
Apple’s lawsuit against OpenAI involves the hiring of two former Apple employees, Chang Liu, a former Engineer, and Tang Yew Tan, a former Vice President of Product Design, who spent over two decades working for their former employer. Apple alleged that the two employees had access to key trade secrets and were hired by the ChatGPT maker in order to expand into the consumer hardware section based on Apple’s technology via a team also led by a prominent former Apple executive, Jony Ive.
Following the filing of the lawsuit in July, Apple sent a letter to OpenAI indicating that it would move for preliminary injunctive relief unless OpenAI agreed to a few of its terms. This include an stoppage on accessing or using Apple’s confidential information, halting any ongoing use or disclosure, preserving any evidence pertinent to the case, allowing forensic investigation of internal OpenAI storage and communication platforms, and a search of its systems for Apple-centric information.
While OpenAI reportedly agreed to some of the items, it was unwilling to allow for any search and access to its systems. This refusal prompted Apple to file a motion for preliminary injunction, with the company stating, “The harm is happening now—every day that passes without an injunction allows OpenAI to embed their knowledge of Apple’s stolen information into its hardware development efforts, further damaging Apple and making it increasingly more difficult to unwind the harm.” The hearing for the injunction is set for October 1, 2026, and while it is still a while away, we expect to hear more about the case in the days leading up to it.
OpenAI Calls Apple’s Lawsuit “Careless, Aggressive and Oddly Personal”
OpenAI released a public statement in a blog post on August 3, remarking on Apple’s allegations of accessing and using its confidential data. While the company called Apple one of the greatest companies of all time, it also added that it has “built a reputation for obsessing over the smallest details” and that this “careless, aggressive and oddly personal lawsuit sadly doesn’t live up to that reputation.” OpenAI also listed many of the flaws in Apple’s claims in the lawsuit, particularly in its communication with OpenAI in the months leading up to the lawsuit.
One of the most pressing details of this trade secret dispute between Apple and OpenAI is that the former accused Apple of failing in its own management of system access when an employee quits the organization. It claimed, “former employees who are trying to do the right thing when they leave still have access to Apple files—despite not wanting them or even being aware of them.”
Managing the offboarding of an employee, particularly one who has access to important proprietary data, is a key part of any organization’s duties. Failure to close off access can have serious repercussions for a business, and if OpenAI’s statements are true, Apple appears to be learning that firsthand.
OpenAI also added that the company’s request for a preliminary injunction was based on “false information and completely unnecessary,” as it did not “have, nor want, any of their trade secrets.” We’ll have to take the company’s word for it until the court’s progress on the case brings more information to light.
The Apple Lawsuit Indicates that Other Former Employees May Also Have Been Involved in this Alleged Scheme
The lawsuit indicates that over 400 former Apple employees now work at OpenAI, implying that the problem may be a systemic one. As such, the Apple-OpenAI dispute doesn’t end at the allegations made against the two former employees, but also extends to the reported evidence that other former employees accessed or discussed confidential Apple data and documents before interviewing for OpenAI or joining its ranks.
Apple also states that after the filing of its complaint, many of its former employees who now work for OpenAI “reached out to discuss returning Apple-issued work devices they kept when they left Apple.” The full scale of Apple’s lawsuit against OpenAI implies a large-scale conspiracy to turn employees into spies before hiring them onto the AI company’s payroll, which isn’t as farfetched of an idea as it might seem on paper.
It is up to the courts to ultimately decide on Apple’s preliminary injunction against OpenAI, as well as review the data to make a decision on the lawsuit overall, but the case does bring up a key consideration for businesses that are protective of their confidential data: the importance of a clear and comprehensive off-boarding program.
Apple’s Fight to Protect Its Confidential Data May Be a Lesson in Security for Businesses
Setting this particular case aside, when employees quit an organization, it falls to the employer to ensure that their access to internal systems and resources is fully severed. Many organizations expect former employees to be available to aid in the transition or continue handovers even after they are no longer employed at the business, opening new avenues for vulnerabilities.
An employee’s decision to quit is their right, but employers must ensure that all avenues of residual access are plugged immediately. In some cases, this might look like a return of work laptops if they still possess company data. In others, it might involve a quicker conclusion to the onboarding of their successor.
Employers cannot restrict current and former employees from communicating with each other, but ensuring that all relevant information has been handed over and is available internally reduces the need for interaction entirely. A regular audit of access permissions can be a vital step in ensuring that only those who require access still have it for their roles, and a partnership between IT and security teams is essential for monitoring these details.
Contracts and Agreements Help Set Additional Precautions in Place
Non-compete agreements and non-disclosure clauses are often built into employee contracts specifically to prevent confidential data from leaking out, but the legality of their use varies from region to region. Garden leave policies are similarly utilized to prevent employees from working with a competitor immediately upon quitting, in exchange for satisfactory compensation for a pre-determined period.
None of these measures is foolproof, but exploring such policies and strategies, particularly for senior roles or positions that handle sensitive data are essential to maintaining a strong barrier against the exposure of trade secrets. Based on how the Apple lawsuit against OpenAI goes, we should have more learnings to walk away with in terms of what the legal route to resolution may look like for businesses in the future.
Subscribe to The HR Digest for more insights on workplace trends, layoffs, and what to expect with the advent of AI.
