Apple has presented what it calls new evidence in its trade-secret lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging that former Apple engineer Chang Liu accessed a confidential power-converter circuit schematic after joining the ChatGPT maker and used the information while training an artificial-intelligence agent.
The allegation appeared in a new filing in US federal court on August 31. Apple says the evidence emerged from a MacBook that OpenAI supplied on August 21 during the legal proceedings. The iPhone maker is now asking the court to accelerate discovery, the evidence-gathering stage of the case.
The claims have not been proven in court. OpenAI has moved to dismiss Apple's lawsuit and has publicly denied possessing or wanting Apple's trade secrets. That distinction matters: the latest filing is Apple's account of evidence, not a judicial finding that Liu or OpenAI committed wrongdoing.
What Apple says the new MacBook evidence shows
According to Apple's filing, Liu, a former senior system electrical engineer at Apple, accessed a confidential power-converter circuit schematic in March 2026, around two months after leaving the company.
Apple alleges that Liu used the schematic to run a simulation with LTspice, an engineering tool used to model electronic circuits. The company further claims that Liu discussed teaching an AI agent to operate LTspice, examine results and adjust parameters for power-conversion work.
Apple says activity from a Mac mini later synchronized to the MacBook involved in the litigation, allowing its forensic examination to identify the alleged use. The company is seeking faster access to additional devices and records that it believes could show how the information was handled.
The filing raises four central questions for the court:
- Did Liu have authorized access to the Apple material after his employment ended?
- Was the circuit schematic an Apple trade secret under US law?
- Was that information actually used for OpenAI's hardware development?
- Did OpenAI know about, direct or benefit from any alleged use?
Those questions are likely to be tested through device analysis, depositions, internal communications and expert testimony if the case proceeds.
Why Apple is asking for expedited discovery
Discovery is the phase in which parties exchange documents, inspect devices and question witnesses. It can take months in a complex technology dispute.
Apple argues that the process should move faster because its confidential information may be in active use and relevant evidence could be lost. Its request follows an earlier bid for a preliminary injunction, a temporary court order that could restrict the defendants' handling or use of disputed material while the lawsuit continues.
An expedited schedule would not decide whether Apple is right. It would give the company earlier access to evidence it says is needed to investigate its allegations, potentially including computers, messages and testimony from employees.
OpenAI, meanwhile, has asked the court to dismiss the case. A dismissal motion typically argues that a complaint is legally insufficient even before all factual disputes are resolved. The court could dismiss the suit, allow Apple to amend it, or let some or all of the claims advance.
OpenAI's response to Apple's lawsuit
OpenAI has denied the broader allegations in unusually direct language. In an August 3 public response, it said it did not have or want Apple's trade secrets and described Apple's preliminary-injunction request as unnecessary.
The company argued that Liu retained what it called residual access because Apple did not properly shut down systems when he left. OpenAI also published messages that, according to its interpretation, show Apple employees contacting Liu after his departure to ask for help locating information and answering technical questions.
OpenAI said those messages contradict the idea that every post-employment interaction was an attempt by Liu to obtain information. It also disputed Apple's account of pre-lawsuit communications and said its consumer products are being developed independently.
Apple's latest filing attempts to move the dispute beyond the access question. Even if a former employee could technically open a file because credentials remained active, Apple is arguing that downloading or using confidential material for a new employer would still be unauthorized.
That creates a crucial legal difference between having access and having permission.
How the Apple–OpenAI dispute began
Apple filed its lawsuit in July 2026 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. It named OpenAI, its hardware subsidiary io Products and former Apple employees Chang Liu and Tang Yew Tan among the defendants.
Tan spent more than two decades at Apple and worked on product design for the iPhone and Apple Watch before moving into OpenAI's hardware operation. Liu worked as a senior electrical engineer.
The original complaint alleged a wider effort to obtain Apple's confidential hardware knowledge through former employees, recruiting and suppliers. Apple claimed that more than 400 former Apple employees worked at OpenAI, while acknowledging that hiring former staff is not itself unlawful.
The legal issue is whether protected documents, manufacturing processes or other confidential information moved with any of those employees and were then used improperly. California's mobile technology workforce makes that a more precise question than simply whether one company hired talent from another.
Why the case matters for OpenAI's hardware plans
OpenAI is trying to expand beyond software and build a direct consumer-hardware business. It acquired io Products, the startup linked to former Apple design chief Jony Ive, in a $6.5 billion transaction in 2025.
No finished OpenAI device has been publicly unveiled in detail, but the company's hardware ambitions have the potential to change how people interact with AI. A successful device could provide an alternative to accessing ChatGPT mainly through smartphones and computers controlled by Apple, Google or Microsoft.
For Apple, that makes OpenAI both a partner and an emerging competitor. Apple integrated ChatGPT into its devices as part of Apple Intelligence, but OpenAI's effort to own the hardware experience could eventually compete for the same users, attention and developer ecosystem.
The lawsuit could affect OpenAI's hardware programme in several ways:
- Court-ordered discovery could expose internal development timelines and communications.
- An injunction could limit the use of disputed material or require stronger information controls.
- Depositions could consume time from senior engineers and executives.
- The case could complicate recruiting from established hardware companies.
- Any adverse finding could delay products or force design changes.
None of those outcomes is certain. If OpenAI wins dismissal or shows independent development, the dispute could narrow significantly.
What is a trade secret in a hardware case?
US trade-secret law can protect information that is economically valuable because it is not generally known and that its owner takes reasonable steps to keep secret. In hardware, that may include circuit designs, tolerances, component choices, testing procedures and manufacturing techniques.
Apple would need to identify its claimed secrets with enough specificity and show that it reasonably protected them. It would also need to connect the defendants to improper acquisition, disclosure or use.
OpenAI can challenge whether the information qualifies as secret, whether access was authorized, whether Apple adequately controlled its systems, whether the material was actually used, and whether OpenAI developed its work independently.
The AI-agent allegation adds a relatively new dimension. If proprietary engineering material is placed into an agent's workflow, investigators may need to determine what the agent retained, which files or prompts it accessed, what outputs it generated and whether those outputs influenced later designs.
That could make audit logs and model-tool interaction records as important as traditional emails and downloaded documents.
The key difference between allegation and proof
The latest filing contains serious claims, but readers should not treat them as established facts. Apple is advocating for its position, while OpenAI and the individual defendants are entitled to challenge the evidence and offer a different explanation.
A forensic record showing that a file was opened or synchronized may prove access, but the court must still evaluate authorization, intent, secrecy and actual use. Likewise, using an AI agent for circuit simulation would not itself be improper unless the work involved protected information obtained or used without permission.
The most important evidence is therefore likely to include the schematic's origin, device timestamps, file-transfer history, internal OpenAI project records and whether any resulting design resembles or depends on Apple's confidential work.
What happens next in Apple vs OpenAI
The federal judge must consider Apple's request for faster discovery as well as OpenAI's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit. If discovery advances, Apple could seek inspection of additional hardware and testimony from Liu, Tan and OpenAI personnel.
The immediate decision will not settle the entire case, but it could determine how quickly Apple gets access to the evidence it says it needs. It may also reveal whether the judge sees an urgent risk to Apple's confidential information.
For the wider technology industry, the dispute is an early test of how old trade-secret rules apply when engineers use AI agents as part of physical product development. As AI companies recruit aggressively from established device makers, clear offboarding controls, access logs and clean-room engineering practices are becoming central competitive safeguards.
Whatever the eventual ruling, the case shows that the race to build the next major AI device will be fought not only in laboratories and product launches, but also through employment controls, forensic audits and intellectual-property law.
Thumbnail uses Reuters file-photo illustrations of the Apple and OpenAI logos by Dado Ruvic.
