OpenAI published employee messages and legal correspondence on August 3rd to contest Apple's trade-secret lawsuit, escalating its defense through a detailed public response that OpenAI Newsroom (@OpenAINewsroom) promoted on X early Tuesday.
The records support OpenAI's argument that former Apple engineer Chang Liu continued helping Apple colleagues after his January departure. They also show Liu directing a colleague to transfer files from his Apple-linked iCloud account, leaving a court to determine whether those transfers and his later access crossed from informal offboarding help into trade-secret misappropriation.
Apple filed the case on July 10th in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Liu, OpenAI hardware chief Tang Yew Tan, OpenAI and io Products. Apple asserted claims under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and for breach of contract, and requested a jury trial.
Apple's 41-page complaint alleges that Liu retained an Apple-issued laptop, exploited an authentication bug after leaving and downloaded dozens of confidential hardware files while employed by OpenAI. Apple says those files covered unreleased products, technical specifications, engineering presentations and proprietary project data.
OpenAI denies possessing or wanting Apple's trade secrets. Its response says Apple's preliminary-injunction request relies on false information and argues that Liu's continued access reflected deficient offboarding controls at Apple.
The messages cut in both directions
OpenAI published messages in which Apple employees asked Liu for technical details and help finding internal material after his last day, January 22nd. One former colleague asked Liu to recall a product-shipping decision because, the colleague wrote, Liu was still the best person to ask. In another exchange, an Apple employee requested a refresher about a technical subject and asked Liu to identify an electrical engineer who might know more.
Those exchanges challenge any broad suggestion that Liu accessed every file solely for OpenAI. Apple employees were actively seeking his assistance, according to the records selected and released by OpenAI.
The same messages leave harder questions for OpenAI. Liu told a colleague to try to AirDrop the other files in his Apple iCloud folder, describing some as shared files and others as personal notes. He later told the colleague that the iCloud account could remain connected while the transfer continued, while warning that iMessage should be disconnected because information from his new employer could appear on the laptop.
On March 5th, after Liu had joined OpenAI, an Apple employee asked him about a technical system and relevant contacts. Liu responded with the location of a file in an internal team folder, described a power block diagram and identified Apple employees to contact. Another participant then called the discussion "highly irregular" and asked to be removed.
The published exchanges establish that Apple personnel sought Liu's help and retained access to his account during a file transfer. They do not establish where every copied file ended up, which documents Liu later opened, or whether OpenAI used any Apple material. Those questions sit at the center of Apple's claims.
Apple's case reaches Tang Tan and OpenAI's recruiting
Apple's allegations extend beyond Liu. Tan spent 24 years at Apple and most recently served as vice president of product design for the iPhone and Apple Watch, according to the complaint. He later co-founded io Products with former Apple design chief Jony Ive, Scott Cannon and Evans Hankey. The io group merged with OpenAI on July 9th, 2025 as part of OpenAI's move into consumer hardware. The transaction was valued at nearly $6.5 billion, according to Associated Press reporting.
Apple alleges Tan used confidential project names when interviewing Apple employees, requested details about unreleased work and directed candidates to bring hardware components to interviews. Apple also claims OpenAI asked candidates for technical presentations covering component choices, engineering methods and supplier relationships. OpenAI says Tan repeatedly instructed staff not to use confidential information from previous employers.
The complaint says more than 400 former Apple employees work at OpenAI. That figure is Apple's assertion, and the filing does not allege wrongdoing by all of them. It does show why recruitment has become a central front in the dispute: OpenAI is trying to assemble consumer-hardware capabilities quickly, and Apple is the deepest pool of experienced device, manufacturing and supply-chain talent in Silicon Valley.
A failed legal contact becomes part of the defense
OpenAI also released February correspondence between Apple outside counsel Gabriel Gross and OpenAI general counsel Che Chang. Gross mistakenly sent Chang a follow-up email intended for another former Apple employee after confusing the recipients. Gross later apologized and explained that the message had gone to the wrong person.
OpenAI uses that episode to challenge Apple's claim that it raised the lawsuit's specific allegations with OpenAI months before filing. Apple had sent a letter about former employees retaining confidential information, but OpenAI says Apple did not pursue the detailed allegations later set out in court.
That procedural dispute will not decide whether trade secrets were taken or used. Its immediate value to OpenAI is strategic. Apple is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions that would prohibit the defendants from possessing, using or disclosing Apple's confidential information, require the return of Apple property and preserve evidence. Even a narrower order could place court-supervised constraints around the hardware operation OpenAI assembled through io.
The case now turns on evidence beyond OpenAI's selected messages and Apple's allegations: device records, server logs, document histories, recruiting materials and evidence about what reached OpenAI's hardware work. OpenAI's publication weakens Apple's account of a clean separation followed by unilateral access. It also documents a file-transfer process loose enough to create the dispute Apple is now asking a federal court to contain.