SAN FRANCISCO — The high-stakes legal battle between technology titan Apple Inc. and artificial intelligence pioneer OpenAI has entered a contentious new phase. In a freshly minted court filing, OpenAI, Jony Ive’s design firm io Products, and individual defendants Chang Liu and Tang Tan have formally asked a federal court to strike down a massive block of evidence and expert testimony recently submitted by Apple.

The defendants argue that Apple is attempting an improper procedural maneuver—smuggling a wave of brand-new evidence into a reply brief where it cannot be fairly contested—as both sides vie for control of a pivotal preliminary injunction.

The dispute threatens to shape not only the future of OpenAI’s nascent consumer hardware division, but also the broader boundaries of intellectual property protection, employee mobility, and corporate espionage in the hyper-competitive generative AI and consumer electronics landscape.

Main Facts of the Case

At the core of the litigation is a high-voltage trade secret theft lawsuit filed by Apple. The complaint targets OpenAI, io Products (the hardware venture spearheaded by legendary former Apple design chief Jony Ive), and two former Apple engineers, Chang Liu and Tang Tan.

Apple’s central grievance is stark: the company alleges that its former employees systematically made off with—or remotely accessed—closely guarded internal engineering and hardware design documents after severing ties with Cupertino. Apple claims this proprietary material was subsequently funneled into OpenAI’s ambitious hardware development initiatives, shortcutting the arduous R&D path required to build consumer devices.

Specifically, Apple has leveled targeted accusations at the individual defendants:

• Chang Liu: Accused of unlawfully accessing confidential engineering files after his departure from Apple, compromising sensitive data related to device architecture and manufacturing.
• Tang Tan: Alleged to have orchestrated the extraction of confidential insider information by probing Apple employees while they were actively interviewing for positions at OpenAI and io Products.

To stanch the alleged bleeding of its intellectual property, Apple has asked the court to impose a sweeping preliminary injunction. If granted, the order would legally bar OpenAI and its co-defendants from accessing, utilizing, disclosing, or soliciting any of Apple’s proprietary trade secrets and confidential information while the core lawsuit grinds its way through the judicial system. Apple argues that such an injunction is the only way to prevent its stolen research and development from becoming permanently baked into OpenAI’s future hardware products.

Chronology of the Legal Escalation

To understand how the case reached this boiling point, it is necessary to examine the rapid-fire sequence of filings that has defined the litigation thus far:

1. The Initial Salvo: Apple formally launches its trade secret lawsuit, accusing OpenAI, io Products, Liu, and Tan of systematic corporate theft and detailing its initial suspicions regarding compromised hardware data.
2. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction: Apple files for a preliminary injunction, requesting judicial intervention to freeze OpenAI’s use of any disputed hardware blueprints and manufacturing secrets.
3. The Defense Response: OpenAI and the co-defendants push back, filing opposition briefs intended to dismantle Apple’s trade secret claims and arguing that the injunction is unjustified and overly broad.
4. Apple’s Heavy Reply: Seeking to reinforce its original motion, Apple drops a massive reply brief supported by five expansive expert declarations spanning 126 pages, alongside 13 separate evidentiary exhibits.
5. The Pushback (Current Phase): Facing the unexpected deluge of late-stage data, OpenAI and its co-defendants file a motion to strike, demanding that the court throw out large portions of Apple’s latest submission as an abuse of civil procedure.

Supporting Data, Experts, and the Battle of the Briefs

The current friction centers on the heavyweight roster of experts deployed by Apple in its recent reply brief, and the defense’s fierce counter-argument that these submissions violate fair trial procedures.

Last week, Apple submitted declarations from five distinct specialists, totaling 126 pages of technical testimony:

• Daniel Roffman: Focused on forensic analysis and communications data extracted from electronic devices.
• James Pooley: A renowned trade secret law expert analyzing the structural viability of Apple’s claims.
• Dr. Ayman Fayed: Offered specialized technical evaluations regarding power-management trade secrets.
• Dr. Paul Hatch: Provided industry insights into competitive hardware manufacturing practices.
• Dr. Jude Runge: Brought in as an entirely new expert witness to detail the precise methods and secrecy surrounding Apple’s proprietary metal-finishing processes.

Apple utilized these experts to defend its internal security practices, dissect forensic data pulled from Chang Liu’s personal and professional devices, and underscore the immense commercial value of Apple’s power-management and metal-finishing blueprints—two crown jewels of the company’s hardware division.

The Defense Strikes Back: "Trial by Reply"

In their latest counter-filing, OpenAI and the co-defendants argue that Apple’s strategy is a procedural foul. They accuse the iPhone maker of trying to fix holes in its original argument by introducing an entirely new wave of evidence after seeing the defense’s initial opposition. Because these documents were introduced in a reply brief—the final written argument before a hearing—the defendants maintain they have been robbed of a fair, reciprocal opportunity to investigate, depose, or properly rebut the claims.

The defendants’ filing highlights several specific objections:

• The "New" Expert: OpenAI points out that Dr. Jude Runge was brought in entirely from the cold as a brand-new expert to bolster arguments Apple had already laid out in its initial motion, giving the defense no prior window for cross-examination.
• Late Investigations: The defense notes that James Pooley relied heavily on an investigative report that was compiled only after Apple filed its original preliminary injunction motion.
• Forensic Overreach: According to the defendants, Daniel Roffman introduced evidence that was readily available to Apple long before the lawsuit was initiated, and moreover, allegedly took certain communications belonging to Chang Liu completely out of context.
• Preventable Additions: They argue that Dr. Ayman Fayed offered fresh technical opinions that could—and should—have been packaged into Apple’s opening brief.

Consequently, OpenAI is asking the federal court to strike the declarations of Roffman and Runge (along with Roffman’s five accompanying exhibits) and to disregard the late-breaking expert opinions entirely. In a clever procedural pivot, the defense added a caveat: should the judge decide to admit Roffman’s evidence anyway, the court must concurrently accept a brand-new declaration from Chang Liu himself, which offers an innocent, contextual explanation for the device activity and messages flagged by Apple.

Official Responses and Legal Arguments

Neither side is pulling punches in the public record. Apple has steadfastly maintained that the extraordinary measures it has taken are fully justified by the scale of the intellectual property theft. Cupertino’s legal team asserts that the forensic evidence recovered from Liu and the recruitment patterns exploited by Tan reveal an intentional, coordinated campaign to plunder Apple’s hardware roadmap.

Conversely, the defense coalition—representing one of the world’s most valuable artificial intelligence enterprises alongside elite hardware designers—has framed Apple’s lawsuit as an aggressive, anti-competitive overreach designed to stifle talent mobility and punish engineers seeking new career horizons.

In their memorandum of points and authorities, OpenAI’s legal representatives stated:

"Apple submitted with its reply brief five new expert declarations (including one entirely new expert), totaling 126 pages, as well as numerous new exhibits. These declarations go far outside the scope of Apple’s opening brief and Defendants’ opposition, and in any event do not save Apple’s deficient motion."

By painting Apple’s late-stage document dump as legally impermissible, OpenAI hopes to narrow the scope of the upcoming preliminary injunction hearing to the original, leaner evidentiary record—where the defense believes Apple’s burden of proof falls short.

Broader Implications for the Tech Industry

Beyond the immediate courtroom theater in San Francisco, this lawsuit carries immense weight for the technology sector at large, touching on several critical flashpoints:

1. The Convergence of AI and Hardware

As companies like OpenAI transition from pure-play software and large language models into physical consumer devices—increasingly teaming up with visionary hardware designers like Jony Ive—the friction between legacy hardware giants and AI startups is bound to escalate. Apple spent decades and billions of dollars perfecting micro-architectures, power efficiency, and metal-finishing techniques. The outcome of this case will establish how strictly courts protect those physical manufacturing secrets against high-velocity AI competitors.

2. Employee Mobility vs. IP Protection

Silicon Valley has long thrived on the fluid movement of talent between dominant incumbents and disruptive startups. However, when top-tier engineers jump ship, the line between carrying valuable industry expertise in one’s head and illegally transferring proprietary corporate documents is razor-thin. This lawsuit will likely set a key precedent regarding how far companies can go in auditing departing employees and penalizing their subsequent employers.

3. Procedural Fairness in Tech Litigation

The immediate battle over Apple’s 126 pages of expert testimony highlights the tactical chess matches that define modern intellectual property litigation. Federal judges are routinely forced to police "trial by reply" tactics, where deep-pocketed litigants attempt to overwhelm opponents with sudden avalanches of technical data. How the presiding judge rules on OpenAI’s motion to strike will send a clear signal regarding the strictness of procedural boundaries in high-tech trade secret disputes.

As the court weighs whether to suppress Apple’s late evidence or admit Chang Liu’s defensive declarations, all eyes remain fixed on San Francisco. The upcoming rulings on both the motion to strike and the broader preliminary injunction will determine whether OpenAI’s hardware ambitions face heavy legal shackles or clear sailing ahead.