On August 4, Apple asked a U.S. judge to issue a court order stopping two former Apple employees and OpenAI from using or sharing Apple's private company information. This is part of a lawsuit Apple filed in July 2026 accusing a former engineer named Chang Liu and a former vice president named Tang Yew Tan of sharing Apple's secrets with the AI company (Reuters).

The court order Apple is asking for is called a preliminary injunction. It is a temporary order that tells someone to stop doing something while a lawsuit is still being decided. Apple wants to prevent OpenAI from using Apple's private information and from building devices Apple suspects are based on its technology. Apple also asked the court to make the defendants hand over documents quickly, so the judge can review them during the injunction hearing rather than waiting for the full trial (Claims Journal; QZ).

Apple says its own investigation found 11 more former employees who may have seen or taken part in the suspected wrongdoing (Engadget). The court filings describe specific examples. One former employee reportedly met with Chang Liu before a job interview at OpenAI and talked about Apple products that had not yet been announced. Another former employee reportedly took screenshots of private Apple documents about an unannounced product before an interview at OpenAI. Several former Apple staff now at OpenAI also reportedly contacted Apple about returning work laptops and other devices they had kept after leaving the company (Engadget).

OpenAI denies the accusations. In a statement, the company said Apple's request is "both based on false information and completely unnecessary because we do not have, nor want, any of their trade secrets" (Engadget). OpenAI also shared text messages that appear to show Apple employees contacting Chang Liu after he left the company, asking him where certain files were located. OpenAI said this shows Apple failed to properly manage its own systems when employees leave, rather than anyone deliberately stealing information (Engadget).

The fight is really about hardware. Reports say OpenAI is building an AI smart speaker with Jony Ive, the former head of design at Apple. OpenAI's $6.5 billion purchase of Ive's startup, called io Products, is directly tied up in the lawsuit, and io Products has been named as a co-defendant (Engadget). If the judge grants Apple's request, OpenAI could be blocked from developing devices that Apple suspects are based on its technology, which could slow down the io Products hardware project.

The two companies are telling very different stories about what happened. Apple's version is that former employees deliberately carried private knowledge about unannounced products to OpenAI, and that buying io Products was a way to move that knowledge over. OpenAI's version is narrower: if any information did circulate, it happened because Apple did not properly shut off access when people left the company, not because anyone stole anything.

Judges only grant this kind of court order when the company asking for it can show two things: that it is likely to win the case, and that the damage being done cannot be fixed later with money. Apple has to convince the court that its secrets are actively at risk right now and that waiting for a full trial would cause harm that cannot be undone.

The 11 additional people Apple identified, if the investigation holds up, could significantly expand the case. It also raises a question that comes up often in these disputes: how do you tell the difference between the general skills and experience an engineer picks up over years of working somewhere, and the specific, protected information about products that have not been announced yet?

OpenAI's argument that Apple failed to manage its own access is a common defense in trade secrets cases. Defendants often argue that if a company did not properly protect its information, it cannot ask the court to protect it after the fact. Whether Apple's specific evidence about screenshots and pre-interview document sharing is enough to overcome that defense is something the court will likely decide in the coming weeks.

The stakes go beyond the two people named in the lawsuit. If the judge grants the order, it could slow down or block OpenAI's first consumer hardware product at a time when the company is reportedly building one. If the judge denies it, Apple loses its strongest immediate leverage and the case moves forward on a normal timeline without the pressure a court order would create.

In this author's view, what makes this case worth watching is not just the specific accusations but the larger question it raises about how talent moves between competing tech companies. Over decades of covering this industry, I have seen this pattern before, when engineers leave one company for a rival and the old employer argues that too much knowledge traveled with them. These disputes are partly about the individuals involved, but they also send a message to the entire workforce about what a company considers off-limits.