Apple v. OpenAI Update: What New Evidence Could Mean for Trade Secrets and Employee Mobility
The trade secret battle between Apple and OpenAI is getting more complicated.
After Apple sued OpenAI and two former Apple employees, alleging that confidential information was improperly taken and used to advance OpenAI's development of AI-powered hardware, OpenAI has now offered a much more detailed response.
And its defense raises an important question for employers and employees alike:
If a company continues seeking an employee's expertise after that person leaves, what does that mean for later claims about the information they possess?
The answer is not necessarily simple, but the latest developments offer another important lesson about trade secrets, employee mobility, offboarding, and the increasingly complicated movement of talent between competitors.
OpenAI Is Pushing Back
Apple's lawsuit alleges that former employees took or accessed confidential information that could benefit OpenAI's hardware development.
OpenAI disputes those allegations.
As part of its public response, OpenAI released communications that it says complicate Apple's version of events. Those messages reportedly show current Apple employees continuing to contact former Apple engineer Chang Liu after he left the company, including seeking technical input from him.
OpenAI argues that the communications undermine Apple's portrayal of Liu as someone who improperly exploited his former position and instead show former colleagues continuing to rely on his knowledge and expertise.
That does not, by itself, resolve the trade secret allegations.
But it highlights an issue that businesses sometimes overlook: the way a company treats departing employees can matter long after they leave.
Offboarding Is More Than Collecting a Laptop
Companies often think about offboarding in administrative terms.
Return the computer. Disable the email account. Collect the badge. Transfer active projects.
When trade secrets are involved, however, offboarding should also establish clear boundaries around confidential information.
Employers should know:
What sensitive information the employee could access
Whether that access has been fully terminated
Whether confidential materials were returned or deleted
Which continuing confidentiality obligations apply
Whether remaining employees understand appropriate boundaries when communicating with former colleagues
That last point deserves particular attention.
If employees routinely contact former colleagues for technical help, institutional knowledge, or information about previous projects, those conversations can potentially blur the boundaries a company is trying to enforce.
A strong trade secret protection strategy should therefore address not only what departing employees may take with them, but also how current employees interact with them after they leave.
Your Expertise Doesn't Disappear When You Change Jobs
The latest dispute also reinforces one of the central points from our original discussion of the case: employees are allowed to take their knowledge, skills, and experience with them.
Changing employers does not erase years of professional expertise.
An engineer does not stop understanding engineering because they join a competitor. A software developer does not lose their programming knowledge. An executive does not have to forget everything they learned about running a business.
Trade secret law generally protects specific confidential information, not an employee's general skills and experience.
The difficult cases arise when those categories overlap.
A former employee may know how a product was developed because they personally helped develop it. They may understand why certain technical decisions were made. They may remember processes, strategies, or problems without referring to a single document.
Determining when that knowledge becomes protected trade secret information can be highly fact-specific.
That is one reason cases like Apple v. OpenAI can become so complicated.
Employers Have Responsibilities, Too
Trade secret protection is not entirely about employee behavior.
Businesses generally need to take reasonable measures to keep information secret if they expect that information to receive trade secret protection.
That can include confidentiality agreements, restricted access, cybersecurity protections, internal policies, employee training, and clear procedures when someone leaves the company.
The latest developments in this case are a reminder that those practices should be consistent.
If a business considers certain knowledge extraordinarily sensitive, its internal practices should reflect that sensitivity.
Companies should consider questions such as:
Who has access to this information?
What happens to that access when someone leaves?
Are employees trained on what they can and cannot discuss with former colleagues?
Do our actual workplace practices match the confidentiality protections written into our policies and agreements?
Policies are important.
Consistent implementation is just as important.
The Case Is Also a Warning for Companies Hiring From Competitors
OpenAI's response does not change another important takeaway from this litigation: companies recruiting employees from competitors should be careful about what information enters the hiring process.
Businesses want candidates because of their experience.
They should not want a competitor's confidential files, proprietary designs, unreleased product information, source code, or other protected materials.
Companies can reduce risk by establishing clear expectations during recruiting and onboarding.
Candidates should understand that they are being hired for their skills and experience, not for confidential information belonging to a former employer.
New employees may also need explicit instructions not to bring documents, files, devices, prototypes, or other proprietary materials from their previous workplace.
That distinction protects both the employee and the new employer.
Documentation Matters
Another lesson emerging from the Apple and OpenAI dispute is the importance of documentation.
Text messages, emails, access records, employment agreements, internal communications, security logs, and other records can become critical when the parties disagree about what happened.
In a trade secret dispute, the story may eventually depend on questions like:
Who accessed what?
When did they access it?
Why did they have access?
What did they do with the information?
Who communicated with whom after employment ended?
What instructions did the employer provide?
What did the new employer know?
Those questions are much easier to answer when companies have clear policies and reliable records.
Apple Is Escalating the Fight
The dispute is far from over.
Apple has sought a preliminary injunction against OpenAI and the former employees and has also requested expedited discovery as it continues pursuing its allegations.
OpenAI, meanwhile, maintains that it does not possess or want Apple's trade secrets and has publicly challenged Apple's characterization of events.
At this stage, these remain competing allegations and defenses. The court has not determined that either side's account is correct.
But businesses do not need to wait for a final ruling to learn from the dispute.
The Bigger Lesson for Businesses and Employees
The Apple v. OpenAI litigation is unfolding between two of the most recognizable companies in technology, but the underlying issues can arise in businesses of almost any size.
Employees change jobs.
Competitors recruit from one another.
Former colleagues stay in touch.
People carry years of knowledge and experience into their next roles.
None of that is inherently improper.
The legal risk emerges when the boundaries between professional experience and protected confidential information become unclear.
For employers, that means identifying and consistently protecting trade secrets before a dispute occurs.
For employees, it means understanding that your skills and experience belong to you, while confidential materials and protected trade secrets belonging to a former employer generally do not.
And for companies hiring from competitors, it means creating safeguards that allow talented people to bring their expertise without bringing someone else's proprietary information with them.
How ARS Counsel Helps
At ARS Counsel, we advise businesses, founders, executives, and professionals on legal issues at the intersection of employment, intellectual property, and emerging technology.
From confidentiality and employment agreements to trade secret protection, employee transitions, and disputes involving proprietary information, proactive legal guidance can help businesses establish clearer boundaries before those boundaries are tested.
As Apple v. OpenAI continues, the facts may evolve.
But one lesson is already clear: protecting trade secrets requires more than saying information is confidential. It requires businesses to treat it that way consistently.