Apple sues OpenAI, alleging a coordinated campaign of trade secret theft

Apple filed a lawsuit against OpenAI on Thursday, accusing the company of orchestrating a systematic campaign of trade secret theft through a network of former employees. The complaint, reported by 9to5Mac, alleges that OpenAI leveraged insiders to siphon confidential information about Apple’s unreleased hardware, manufacturing processes, and product designs.

The filing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California names two former Apple employees as defendants: Tang Tan, former VP of product design who left in February 2024 to work with Jony Ive, and Chang Liu, a senior system electrical engineer who departed for OpenAI in January 2026. Also named are OpenAI itself and io Products, the startup founded by Ive that OpenAI acquired last year for $6.5 billion.

The suit claims the conduct is “the tip of the iceberg.” Apple says it first raised concerns with OpenAI in February and received no response. The company alleges that over 400 former Apple employees now work at OpenAI.

This is not a standard non-compete dispute. The complaint describes a playbook: former executives using internal codenames to probe job candidates about unannounced products, directing applicants to bring actual hardware components to interviews for “show and tell” sessions, and distributing Apple’s security protocols to new hires before they gave notice.

One candidate began “screenshotting and downloading files relating to a highly confidential Apple project” hours before interviewing with Tan, who then “solicited more information about that same Apple project” during the interview. Apple says this became an “established pattern.”

The allegations against Liu are more technical. Apple claims he exploited a security bug to download confidential engineering files after leaving the company. Rather than report the vulnerability, Liu allegedly joked about it in messages (“LOL,” “so funny”). He downloaded a “compilation of technical files with over a thousand pages” including detailed manufacturing documents for circuit boards. He also failed to return an Apple-issued laptop.

The suit also alleges that OpenAI had a trusted Apple partner carry out Apple’s proprietary metal-finishing technique, misleading the partner into believing it had Apple’s permission. OpenAI also approached a second longtime Apple supplier that works on power and battery manufacturing, using insider terminology to ask “targeted questions” about specific Apple components.

The lawsuit comes as OpenAI works to bring its first consumer hardware device to market. Rumors have circulated about an OpenAI smartphone, with analyst Ming-Chi Kuo projecting a 2028 launch, and a HomePod-style smart speaker.

The timing is awkward. Apple and OpenAI have a partnership to integrate ChatGPT into Siri. The suit explicitly says that agreement is not at issue here, but the tension is hard to ignore. Bloomberg reported that OpenAI was preparing “legal action” against Apple over how that partnership played out. Now Apple has filed first.

Jony Ive, Sam Altman, and former Apple design executives Evans Hankey and Scott Cannon are not personally named in the filing. Ive’s role as OpenAI’s hardware chief, however, makes him the gravitational center of the alleged scheme. The complaint describes a culture at OpenAI where trade secret theft is “normalized and exemplified by leadership.”

The suit seeks injunctive relief and damages. The real question is what Apple wants beyond money. An injunction could delay or reshape OpenAI’s hardware plans. It could also send a signal to every other AI company poaching from Apple’s hardware teams.

What is genuinely new here is not the allegation that employees left with information. That happens in every tech company. What is new is the systematic nature of the alleged operation: former executives actively recruiting current employees to bring physical prototypes to interviews, a security bug exploited for data exfiltration, and a supply chain infiltration using proprietary manufacturing techniques.

The complaint reads like a case study in how talent wars escalate when the stakes involve physical products. Software talent is fungible. Hardware talent carries the specific knowledge of supply chains, manufacturing tolerances, and proprietary processes that cannot be reverse-engineered from a teardown.

Apple has been losing hardware talent to OpenAI for years. The 400 figure is a number that suggests a structural problem, not a few bad actors. The lawsuit is Apple’s attempt to draw a line.

The case will test whether the legal system can police the flow of hardware knowledge in an era when AI companies are desperate for physical product expertise. It will also test whether OpenAI’s defense is that this is standard competitive practice or something more reckless.

For AI builders, the lesson is straightforward. When you hire hardware talent, you inherit their knowledge. You also inherit their obligations. The complaint alleges that OpenAI treated those obligations as optional. The court will decide if that is true. The industry will watch either way.