Apple and OpenAI are due before US District Judge Edward J. Davila in San Jose on 14 October 2026 for arguments on Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction and OpenAI’s motion to dismiss a trade secrets lawsuit. Apple’s 5 October court filing lists the hearing for 9:00 AM in case 5:26-cv-07078-EJD. The motions ask the judge to make different decisions at this stage of the case: whether to restrict OpenAI’s use of information Apple says it obtained, or end the lawsuit as OpenAI requests.
Key points
- Apple wants OpenAI barred from using confidential information it allegedly acquired from Apple and from seeking further private details.
- An injunction, if granted, would remain in place while the lawsuit proceeds.
- OpenAI denies the allegations and argues that Apple has identified broad categories of information rather than particular stolen trade secrets.
- The judge ordered accelerated production of some OpenAI documents on 13 October.
Apple seeks an injunction against OpenAI
Apple wants an order requiring OpenAI to stop using any confidential Apple information it has acquired and to halt attempts to obtain more private details, Bloomberg Law reported. If Davila grants the preliminary injunction, it would apply while Apple’s lawsuit continues. The requested order would constrain OpenAI before a final resolution of Apple’s allegations, rather than wait for the lawsuit to run its course.
Apple sued OpenAI, its hardware chief and a former iPhone hardware engineer in July. It alleges that the defendants conspired to obtain confidential information concerning product design, manufacturing, component technologies, testing methods and its supply chain. According to Apple, OpenAI used interviews with current and former Apple employees to seek proprietary material. Apple alleges that OpenAI leaders told candidates to bring prototypes and other design materials to interviews.
That account puts the conduct of recruiting at the centre of the injunction request. Apple’s allegation concerns both information it says has already reached OpenAI and further information it wants the company prevented from acquiring. The order Apple seeks would therefore cover continued use as well as further collection while the case proceeds. OpenAI disputes that its interviews were a means of obtaining Apple’s secrets.
The defendants named in Apple’s court filing include Chang Liu, Tang Yew Tan, OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI Group PBC and IO Products LLC. Apple’s filing describes Liu’s handling of an iMac and a confidential computer file as contested matters in the evidence submitted for its preliminary-injunction motion. Those disputes sit alongside its broader allegations about interviews and access to information.
OpenAI asks Davila to dismiss Apple’s case
OpenAI wants Davila to dismiss the lawsuit. It argues that Apple has pointed to general areas of hardware development without identifying the particular trade secrets it says were stolen. OpenAI also denies the alleged scheme and contends that Apple brought the case to restrain employees from leaving for a competitor. In an October court filing, OpenAI said it had no need or desire for Apple’s trade secrets, Bloomberg Law reported.
OpenAI’s account of Liu’s access challenges Apple’s account of how information changed hands. The company says Apple encouraged staff to use personal iCloud accounts for work and that an authentication error left Liu with access after his departure. OpenAI’s lawyers also claim that Apple employees subsequently accessed material in Liu’s personal account and asked him for files and answers to technical questions.
Apple draws a distinction between that personal-account material and its allegation that Liu later used an authentication flaw to enter Apple’s network storage and download confidential files. The distinction matters to the opposing accounts before Davila: OpenAI cites continued contact and access after Liu left Apple, while Apple alleges a separate act of access to its network. Both positions remain arguments in the lawsuit.
Apple and OpenAI also have a partnership that brought ChatGPT into Apple software. That commercial relationship has continued alongside their court dispute over information connected to hardware development.
Apple contests Liu evidence under Rule 7-3(d)(1)
Apple’s 5 October filing addresses a narrower dispute over what Davila should consider on the injunction motion. Apple says the defendants used objections to evidence in its reply to introduce further argument, contrary to Civil Local Rule 7-3(d)(1). It points in particular to an eight-paragraph declaration from Liu that, according to Apple, addresses why he erased data from an iMac before returning it, messages with an Apple supplier and his use of a confidential file.
Apple says the objections and declaration total nine pages, exceeding the rule’s five-page limit for the text of objections. Its filing asks Davila to reject the defendants’ request to strike Apple’s reply evidence. Apple also asks him to decide the injunction motion with both its reply material and the defendants’ additional submissions before him. That is Apple’s requested treatment of the disputed papers, not a ruling on their contents.
Davila separately ordered OpenAI on 13 October to accelerate production of documents concerning the alleged acquisition of Apple trade secrets for planned consumer hardware. AI Affairs reported the order for access to hiring records in the lawsuit. The document-production order came before the scheduled hearing on the injunction and dismissal motions.
