Apple Sues OpenAI Over Alleged Hardware Trade Secrets

The complaint centers on Apple's assertion that former employees carried proprietary information into OpenAI's hardware organization. AP and the BBC reported that Apple alleges Liu, who had worked on sensitive product-development efforts, and Tan, who spent 24 years at Apple, had access to confidential work before joining OpenAI.

The Verge, which reviewed the 41-page complaint, reported allegations that candidates interviewed by OpenAI were asked to bring components or unreleased samples for "show and tell." Apple also alleges that OpenAI personnel coached candidates on how to avoid security checks and that confidential product information was transferred through former employees. These are Apple's allegations, not findings by a court.

Apple's complaint further names io Products, the startup founded by former Apple designer Jony Ive. The Guardian and CNBC reported that OpenAI acquired io Products for $6.4 billion in 2025, placing the company behind a hardware initiative whose device type has not been publicly disclosed. AP reported that OpenAI has described the broader effort as seeking an interaction model for AI beyond traditional products and interfaces.

The lawsuit marks a sharp deterioration in a relationship that previously included Apple's integration of ChatGPT into iPhone, iPad, and Mac software in 2024. The Guardian and CNBC reported that Apple subsequently based a forthcoming Siri update on Google's Gemini models rather than OpenAI technology.

For AI practitioners, the dispute matters less as a claim about model performance than as a high-profile collision between frontier-model development and consumer-device engineering. Hardware programs typically concentrate sensitive information across supplier databases, prototype labs, firmware repositories, manufacturing partners, and employee collaboration systems. Companies operating in comparable talent markets often strengthen access controls, offboarding procedures, interview protocols, and provenance tracking when staff move between direct competitors.

The case could also test how broadly courts treat technical knowledge carried by experienced employees versus protected trade secrets embodied in documents, prototypes, supplier data, or internal systems. Its factual allegations, legal defenses, and any eventual rulings remain unresolved.