Apple v. OpenAI trade secrets lawsuit: The fight over forensic images and hardware R&D records

Apple is escalating its trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI by asking the court for direct access to forensic images and hardware development records. In a joint filing made public last week, Apple argues that its own experts need to review the underlying forensic data from former employee Chang Liu's devices, and that OpenAI must produce documents related to metal finishes, power management, and battery functionality. The case is a critical test of how trade secret protections apply when AI companies build hardware with talent from established device makers.

The forensic dispute: who gets to examine the evidence

Apple's initial forensic inspection of a MacBook used by Liu after leaving Apple allegedly showed that he ran a simulation using a confidential Apple circuit schematic while working at OpenAI. Apple also identified a Mac mini as another device of interest. Now Apple says its forensic expert has found critical flaws in the defendants' analysis of those devices, including failures to locate files on the Mac mini and incorrect conclusions that zero-byte files or empty metadata fields meant files were not accessed.

Apple wants its own experts to review the underlying forensic images directly. OpenAI counters that a neutral forensic expert should handle the images under a jointly agreed protocol, arguing that Apple's request is overbroad. Apple says that would put it at a disadvantage since the defendants' experts already had direct access.

The hardware R&D records fight

Beyond the forensic images, Apple is seeking expedited access to OpenAI's hardware development records, specifically documents on metal finishes, power management, and battery functionality. OpenAI previously argued that its metal finishes were developed independently and that the simulation Liu ran had nothing to do with its upcoming product. Apple now wants the underlying development records to test those claims.

OpenAI calls this an attempt to snoop on a competitor and says the request is not limited to its first product but encompasses any research and development. Apple counters that OpenAI put its development at issue by claiming independent development, so it must produce supporting documents.

Why AI builders should care

This case is a real-world stress test for how trade secret protections work when employees move between hardware and AI companies. For any team building AI products that touch physical devices, the outcome will shape what counts as legitimate independent development versus misappropriation. The dispute also highlights the importance of offboarding practices: OpenAI has argued that Apple's lax security and iCloud policies made it easier for employees to retain access to confidential information after leaving.

If Apple wins expedited discovery, it could set a precedent for how courts handle requests for a competitor's hardware R&D records in trade secret cases. That matters for any AI company developing custom silicon, sensors, or consumer devices.

Caveats

The case is ongoing and the details may shift as discovery proceeds. The court has not yet ruled on Apple's requests. The analysis here relies on court filings and media summaries, not on direct access to the evidence. The dispute over the breadth of discovery remains unresolved, and both sides have strong incentives to characterize the facts favorably.