Apple has accused OpenAI and the other defendants in its trade secrets lawsuit of going beyond court rules in their latest filing. Apple says the defendants used an objection to its reply evidence to argue the merits of the case again, and to add new testimony from former Apple employee Chang Liu.
Apple made the claim in a response filed on Monday, as reported by 9to5Mac. It follows OpenAI’s request to strike new Apple evidence from the court record. You can read Apple’s full filing as well.
Apple Says OpenAI’s Objection Became a Second Round of Arguments
Apple wants a preliminary injunction against OpenAI. The goal is to keep its trade secrets from becoming further embedded in OpenAI’s hardware development while the lawsuit plays out.
To support that request, Apple filed a reply brief with five expert declarations. The defendants objected and asked the court to disregard some of that material, arguing it should have come earlier. They also attached documents of their own that countered Apple’s claims.
Apple argues the defendants went beyond what Rule 7-3(d)(1) allows, since the rule lets a party object to new evidence in a reply brief but bars further argument on the motion. In Apple’s view, the defendants used their filing to relitigate its injunction request.
As an example, Apple points to the defendants’ challenge to Dr. Jude Runge. They dispute whether he has a basis to offer his analysis and argue that certain Apple information is not public. Apple says those points are arguments on the merits, which the rule does not allow in an objection.
Apple Calls Chang Liu’s New Declaration the Biggest Overreach
The sharpest criticism is aimed at a new declaration from Liu. Apple describes it as “the most egregious overreach” in the defendants’ filing. The declaration runs eight paragraphs and covers three topics Apple has raised in the case:
| Topic in Liu’s declaration | What the defendants use it for |
|---|---|
| Erasing data from his iMac | Explaining why Liu wiped it before returning it to Apple |
| Text messages with an Apple supplier | Arguing over what the messages mean |
| One of Apple’s confidential computer files | Explaining his use of the file |
Objections under the rule are capped at five pages of text. Apple says the defendants’ filing and the Liu declaration together run nine pages.
The defendants had asked the court to consider Liu’s declaration only if it also considered the Apple evidence they were challenging. Apple argues that because they have now answered that evidence at length, the court should deny the request to strike any of it. It describes the filing as closer to a sur-reply, and says the defendants never asked for permission to file one.
Apple wants the court to decide the injunction on a full record. That record would include its own reply evidence and the new arguments and testimony the defendants submitted.
The Court Hears the Injunction Request on October 14
Apple sued OpenAI, io Products, Liu and Tang Tan in July, accusing them of trade secret misappropriation. Apple has also asked the court to let its own experts review OpenAI’s forensic evidence in the case.
The court is scheduled to hear arguments on Apple’s preliminary injunction request on October 14.
