Apple filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and a former Apple engineer on Friday, July 10, 2026, in federal court in California. The 41-page complaint accuses OpenAI and Chang Liu, who worked as a senior systems engineer at Apple before joining OpenAI, of stealing trade secrets and breaching contracts. Apple's attorney Gabriel Gross filed the case, docketed as Apple Inc. v. Liu, No. 5:26-cv-07078 CourtListener.

The core allegations center on how sensitive technical information moved from Apple to OpenAI. Apple claims Liu accessed Apple's internal file storage by exploiting a security bug—a flaw in the system that checks who is allowed to see what. He allegedly used a work computer belonging to another Apple employee, Yu-Ting "Alyssa" Peng, to gain this unauthorized access. Peng later also joined OpenAI but is not named as a defendant in the suit TechCrunch.

The complaint also names OpenAI's chief hardware officer, Tang Yew Tan, as central to the alleged scheme. Tan spent 24 years at Apple, most recently as vice president of product design for the iPhone and Apple Watch. Apple alleges that Tan told job candidates who were still Apple employees to bring "actual parts," design files, and prototypes to their OpenAI interviews. The filing further claims OpenAI coached departing Apple staff on ways to hide what they were taking from Apple and avoid triggering security alarms TechCrunch.

Major news outlets reported the filing quickly. Reuters framed it as Apple suing OpenAI and two former employees over stolen trade secrets, while CNBC confirmed the Northern District of California venue and the trade secret allegations on the same day the suit became public Reuters CNBC.

Neither company has issued a detailed public response to the specific claims in the complaint. No statements from Tan, Liu, or Peng have been reported.

What makes this case noteworthy

The way Tan is portrayed in the complaint matters. He is not officially named as a defendant—the suit names Liu and OpenAI itself—but the complaint describes him as actively directing recruiting practices that involved physical hardware and design materials. This distinction is legally important. Trade secret law typically draws a line between information that is formally protected and documented (like design files and physical prototypes) and general skills an engineer can legitimately carry from one job to the next. Physical prototypes and design files sit more clearly on the protected side of that line. If Apple's allegations hold up in court, they would fall into the category of material that companies have a right to defend.

The security bug allegation also stands out. What Apple is describing is not the familiar scenario of an employee copying files before they leave the company, but rather an exploited weakness in access controls. If the allegations are accurate, Liu used that bug to reach systems he had no job reason to access. That pattern could strengthen Apple's legal position by adding what's called unauthorized computer access to the trade secret misappropriation claims.

Talent movement between Apple and OpenAI has been significant in recent years, particularly in hardware and design roles. Apple and OpenAI do not directly compete today—Apple has chosen to partner with OpenAI rather than build its own frontier AI models, while OpenAI has moved into hardware ambitions under Tan's leadership after hiring design talent from consumer electronics companies. The lawsuit exposes how fluid the boundary between the two companies' talent pools has become, and how that fluidity can turn contentious once litigation begins.

Silicon Valley has always seen engineers and designers move between rival companies, and it is standard for departing employees to bring accumulated expertise with them. What is less typical is a formal complaint alleging that a hiring company's chief hardware officer actively requested physical artifacts from a rival's current employees during the interview process itself. For corporate legal and HR teams at companies competing for AI talent, this case will likely become a reference point regardless of its outcome. It will test whether courts hold a company liable not just for what individual employees do, but for whether a hiring company's recruitment practices themselves amount to actionable misappropriation. Evidence that may emerge during discovery—internal emails and messages between OpenAI staff—could clarify whether Tan's alleged instructions were official policy, informal practice among teams, or isolated conduct by one person.