Apple has asked a court for a preliminary injunction to stop OpenAI from developing an AI device or other products based on Apple's technology, escalating a trade secrets dispute that now involves at least 13 former Apple employees and the hardware startup co-founded by Jony Ive.

The injunction request was filed alongside a motion for expedited discovery — a legal procedure that asks the court to speed up the evidence-gathering process — in Apple Inc. v. Liu (docket 73602437). The case targets former Apple employees Chang Liu and Tang Yew Tan, OpenAI, OpenAI's foundation, and io, the hardware startup co-founded by former Apple design lead Jony Ive. The motion was detailed in a filing reported on August 4, 2026 (TechCrunch).

Apple's investigation has identified 11 additional former employees beyond Liu and Tan who may have been witnesses or otherwise involved in the alleged transfer of trade secrets. The original complaint, filed July 10, 2026, named OpenAI employee Yu-Ting Peng alongside Liu and Tan (Reuters). Liu was a senior system electrical engineer at Apple; Tan was a former vice president of product (Reuters).

The new filing describes specific episodes Apple says it uncovered. One former Apple employee met with Chang Liu and Yu-Ting Peng before Peng's interview at OpenAI and discussed Apple proprietary information about unannounced products during that meeting. Another former employee took screenshots of confidential Apple documents related to an unannounced product before an interview at OpenAI (TechCrunch).

Apple also claimed that after it filed its initial complaint, multiple former Apple employees now working at OpenAI reached out to discuss returning Apple-issued work devices they had kept when they left the company (TechCrunch).

The original lawsuit alleged that OpenAI coached departing Apple employees on how to bypass security processes when leaving the iPhone maker, and that the misconduct was directed by OpenAI's senior leadership, including a longtime former employee (CNBC; TechCrunch). Apple's complaint says over 400 former Apple employees now work at OpenAI (NBC News).

OpenAI has publicly pushed back. In a statement responding to the injunction request, OpenAI said Apple's request is "both based on false information and completely unnecessary" because OpenAI "does not have, nor want, any of Apple's trade secrets" (TechCrunch).

The dispute has already produced at least one procedural misstep for Apple. The company emailed the wrong person when it initially contacted OpenAI after confusing two similar surnames (NBC News).

The case exists against a backdrop of intertwined business relationships. Apple announced Apple Intelligence for iPhone, iPad, and Mac on June 10, 2024, stating that for users who access ChatGPT through Apple Intelligence, their IP addresses would be obscured and OpenAI would not store requests (Apple Newsroom). Apple expanded Apple Intelligence across iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch, and Apple Vision Pro in 2025 (Apple Newsroom). The two companies are simultaneously partners in consumer AI delivery and adversaries in court over the alleged theft of product and engineering secrets.

The broader context here is that the scope of Apple's investigation has grown substantially in under a month, from two named defendants to 13 individuals plus possible witness testimony. The expedited discovery motion signals Apple's intent to move quickly, likely before any io device reaches a stage where remediation becomes impractical. The screenshots-and-meetings-before-interviews pattern Apple describes, if substantiated, would point to coordinated pre-departure data collection rather than the incidental knowledge employees naturally carry in their heads. That is a different category of concern than the usual flow of engineering talent between competitors.

For OpenAI's part, the flat denial that it possesses or wants Apple's trade secrets is a strong stance given the volume of specific allegations. The surname mix-up in initial contact weakens Apple's procedural credibility, though it does not directly address the substance of the evidence Apple says it has gathered.

The io device startup adds a distinct dimension. If Apple's injunction succeeds, it could constrain what io is able to build and ship, regardless of how much of io's engineering is independently derived. For a hardware startup, a court-ordered constraint on what technology it can incorporate into product development is a serious operational risk, not merely a legal one.