OpenAI Asks Court to Dismiss Apple Trade Secrets Lawsuit With Prejudice

OpenAI and the other defendants in Apple's trade secret lawsuit have asked a federal court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, arguing Apple still has not identified the specific trade secrets at issue or plausibly alleged that any defendant misappropriated them. With the reply filed on August 26 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, briefing on the motion is now complete ahead of an October 1 hearing.



Apple sued OpenAI, io Products, and former employees Chang Liu and Tang Yew Tan in July, accusing them of orchestrating a campaign to steal hardware trade secrets tied to unreleased devices. The company is also seeking a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery while the case proceeds. The defendants first moved to dismiss the suit in early August, describing it as 'careless, aggressive and oddly personal'.


The 21-page reply argues that Apple's opposition "confirms, rather than cures, the Complaint's central defect." To state a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, the defendants say Apple must identify the specific trade secret at issue, explain why it qualifies for protection, and show how a particular defendant improperly acquired, disclosed, or used it. According to the filing, the complaint never completes that chain, instead relying on "vague categories and catch-alls" such as component architecture, confidential testing data, proprietary manufacturing processes, and supplier relationships.

The reply also challenges Apple's claims that it took reasonable measures to protect its alleged trade secrets. It points to Apple's own allegations that Chang Liu could access documents using his own Apple login credentials, which remained active after he left the company, that Apple later asked him to help retrieve and identify files, and that Apple employees used those credentials to download documents themselves. The defendants say those allegations undermine Apple's claim that it took reasonable measures to protect its trade secrets and, on their own, require dismissal of the trade secret claims.

The defendants further contend Apple has not plausibly tied Liu or Tang Yew Tan to specific acts of misappropriation. For Liu, they argue the downloads Apple describes were performed at the direction of Apple employees for Apple's benefit. They also point to a text message noting he could still access Apple's network storage, arguing it was sent to an Apple employee after a colleague asked for help locating documents. For Tan, the reply says Apple never identifies a specific trade secret he allegedly acquired, disclosed, or used, and characterizes his request that candidates bring "shipped" parts to interviews as a common and innocuous way for applicants to discuss their previous work.

As for OpenAI and io Products, the defendants maintain the complaint never alleges anyone received specific trade secrets during interviews. They also contend Apple's allegations involving a metal-finishing supplier amount to a fraud claim that fails to meet the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). On the issue of harm, the reply says Apple's allegations are largely boilerplate and argues the company's months-long delay after mistakenly emailing the wrong person about its concerns undercuts its claim of ongoing harm.


Finally, the reply argues that if the court dismisses Apple's claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, it should also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Apple's state-law breach of contract claims. According to the defendants, Apple did not address that argument in its opposition.

Please download the iClarified app or follow iClarified on X, Facebook, YouTube, and RSS for updates on the case.