Apple filed its response to OpenAI’s motion to dismiss, systematically rejecting each of the company’s three core defenses and accusing OpenAI of failing to grapple with what Apple calls “shocking allegations” at the heart of the trade secrets theft case.
The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, names former Apple executives Tang Tan and Chang Liu, as well as OpenAI and io Products, as defendants. Tan spent 24 years at Apple as VP of product design, leading iPhone and Apple Watch development before departing in February 2024 to join Jony Ive at io Products, which merged with OpenAI in July 2025. Liu worked at Apple for eight years as a senior systems electrical engineer and left to join OpenAI in January 2026.
This response represents a hardened position from Apple. Rather than negotiate or narrow its claims, the company has doubled down on its core narrative: that OpenAI with help from Ive’s hardware team, has systematically stolen Apple’s intellectual property to accelerate its own device development. The October 1 preliminary injunction hearing will be the next critical test of whether a federal judge agrees.
Apple’s response addresses OpenAI’s three main dismissal arguments
Apple’s filing directly addresses OpenAI’s three dismissal arguments: that Apple “has failed to demonstrate it owns a protectable trade secret,” that the company “has failed to allege conduct that plausibly supports a claim of misappropriation,” and that it “fails to plausibly allege any injury or ongoing harm.”
According to Apple’s filing, the company argues that it “sufficiently identifies specific trade secrets that defendants misappropriated,” citing previous cases where courts found similar levels of detail sufficient to let trade secret claims proceed. Apple further contends that OpenAI’s allegations that Apple failed to protect its secrets “are likewise not credible,” stating that OpenAI “trivialize[s] Apple’s trade secrets as mere ‘supplier relationships’ and then question[s] whether all ‘supplier relationships’ are confidential.”
Apple also argues that OpenAI is misusing the motion-to-dismiss mechanism itself, framing the tactic as an attempt to sidestep substantive engagement with the core allegations. Apple’s legal history shows this is not the first time the company has accused an opponent of procedural bad faith in a high-stakes courtroom dispute.
Tang Tan’s recruiting practices get specific rebuttal
Apple’s response includes detailed rebuttal of OpenAI’s characterization of Tang Tan’s recruiting strategy. OpenAI had claimed that Tan asked job candidates to bring parts anyone could buy for “show and tell” sessions. Apple’s filing directly contradicts this account:
“Mr. Tan did not ask candidates to bring parts anyone can buy; he directed a then-Apple employee to bring ‘some parts [she] worked on’ such as ‘[b]atteries,’ ‘mlb’ (multi-layer or main logic boards), and ‘shields’, internal components from her confidential Apple work, for ‘show and tell’ before the OpenAI hardware team.”
The language suggests Apple views Tan’s recruitment strategy as a deliberate conduit for transferring proprietary hardware knowledge to OpenAI’s hardware division, led by Ive. For Apple, this is not casual boundary-crossing but structured transfer of confidential components and design expertise. The alleged misconduct echoes broader concerns about Apple’s hardware privacy and how the company safeguards its most sensitive product development work.
Chang Liu’s network access allegations clarified
Apple’s response also clarifies its allegations against Liu regarding unauthorized access to Apple’s systems. The filing states:
“The Complaint does not allege that Mr. Liu answered his former manager’s questions or that Apple employees accessed his personal iCloud account; it alleges that after his departure, Mr. Liu exploited an authentication bug to ‘access Apple’s network storage’, a cloud-based file repository containing Apple’s confidential [materials],” celebrated the discovery (“LOL… so funny”), and then spent weeks downloading dozens of confidential files while developing hardware for OpenAI.”
This directly rebuts OpenAI’s published defense, which included a heavily redacted exchange in which a former Apple colleague contacted Liu for help. OpenAI had argued this proved Apple’s theft characterization was misleading. Apple’s response indicates the colleague’s request was separate from Liu’s systematic exploitation of a network authentication flaw, and that Liu was aware of the impropriety, evidenced by his own quoted reaction.
The scale of alleged misconduct extends far beyond two individuals
Apple’s complaint alleges that more than 400 former Apple employees now work at OpenAI. The company has sent legal preservation letters to approximately 40 former employees. This suggests that Apple believes the misconduct extends well beyond the two named defendants. Io Products’ merger with OpenAI brought more than 50 engineers, developers, and other staff into the combined entity.
OpenAI now has access to talent with intimate knowledge of Apple’s design processes, supplier relationships, manufacturing constraints, and product roadmaps across multiple hardware categories. Whether that knowledge transfer constitutes trade secret misappropriation, or merely an inevitable consequence of hiring mobility, is ultimately what the October 1 hearing and the full litigation will determine.
What the October 1 preliminary injunction hearing means
A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for October 1 before U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, who was assigned to the case in July. At this hearing, Apple will need to convince Davila that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its trade secrets claims and that it faces irreparable harm without an immediate court order halting OpenAI’s use of the allegedly stolen information.
Preliminary injunction decisions in IP litigation often set the trajectory for the entire case. If Davila grants Apple’s request, it would signal skepticism of OpenAI’s dismissal arguments and could pressure settlement negotiations. If he denies it, Apple’s case becomes significantly harder to win, though not impossible. The broader litigation could take years to fully resolve. Past regulatory and legal setbacks for Apple demonstrate how long such battles can drag on before a final resolution emerges.
Apple’s response leaves no opening for compromise in its language. The company frames OpenAI’s motion as an abuse of the dismissal mechanism itself and rejects any suggestion that its protective measures were inadequate. That posture suggests Apple intends to push this case toward trial.
