OpenAI's Legal Defense Against Apple's Trade Secrets Lawsuit: Four Pillars of the Strategy

The cornerstone of OpenAI's defense is that the information Apple calls "trade secrets" was never properly protected under trade secrets law. In its motion, OpenAI submitted evidence that Apple engaged in practices that made its confidential information nearly impossible to safeguard .

Specifically, OpenAI argues that Apple allowed employees to use personal iCloud accounts for work, which intermingled corporate and personal data and made access controls nearly impossible to enforce . The company also failed to properly revoke system access after employees left, leaving former employees with "latent access" to Apple systems that they were not even aware of .

Perhaps most damningly, OpenAI submitted evidence that an Apple manager remained logged into a former employee's personal iCloud account after he left the company, using it to transfer files and later asking that former employee for technical help on Apple projects .

OpenAI's filing states: "Apple cannot transform the foreseeable consequences of its own systems and policies into evidence of theft by former employees who were ... not aware of their latent access" . This argument directly targets a key element of trade secrets law: the owner must take reasonable measures to keep the information secret.

2. Apple Failed to Specify Which Trade Secrets Were Allegedly Stolen

OpenAI argues that Apple's complaint is legally insufficient because it fails to identify specific trade secrets with the particularity the law requires . According to OpenAI, Apple's complaint refers only to "generic categories of the product-development process—such as component manufacturing, product testing, vendor and supplier relationships, and distribution channels" .

This vagueness, OpenAI contends, prevents OpenAI from meaningfully responding to the allegations and should doom the case at the pleading stage . In legal terms, this is a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: if Apple cannot say precisely what was stolen, OpenAI cannot defend itself, and the case should not proceed to discovery .

3. The Lawsuit Is a Pretext to Slow a Competitor

OpenAI's motion explicitly accuses Apple of filing a "baseless and pretextual lawsuit" to compensate for its own failures . The filing notes that variations of the word "fail" appear nearly 50 times in the 31-page document, portraying Apple as attempting to litigate its way out of strategic problems rather than addressing its difficulty retaining top engineering talent and its lagging AI integration .

The argument is blunt: "Apple should not be permitted to use a baseless and pretextual lawsuit to make up for its shortcomings in the market for talent and retaining its employees, and its failures to integrate AI into its products" . Apple's own lawsuit alleges that more than 400 former Apple employees have joined OpenAI, underscoring the talent competition angle .

4. Factual Rebuttals: The Wrong Email, a Helpful Ex-Employee, and a Manager's Own Access

Beyond legal arguments, OpenAI's motion and blog post include specific factual challenges to Apple's narrative:

Apple contacted the wrong person. Apple claimed it contacted OpenAI in February 2026 but received no response. OpenAI says Apple's outside lawyers emailed the wrong person after confusing two Asian last names, and that Apple now concedes this error .

Apple never raised these specifics before suing. OpenAI says Apple told OpenAI it was "resolving any issues" and then heard nothing for five months until the lawsuit was filed .

Former employee was helping former colleagues, not stealing. OpenAI published iMessage transcripts showing that former Apple engineer Chang Liu was asked by his Apple manager to help locate files and continue assisting with Apple projects after his last day, and that the manager remained signed into Liu's iCloud account with Liu's knowledge .

Tang Tan's conduct was proper. OpenAI says its Chief Hardware Officer Tang Yew Tan, who spent 24 years at Apple, was always clear that the team "do not want, and must not use, any confidential information from other companies" .

The 'bug' was not a bug. Apple alleged a "rare bug" allowed a former employee to retain access. OpenAI says this was simply Apple's failure to manage system access when people leave, a recurring issue .

What Happens Next

The case is at an early stage. Apple has requested a preliminary injunction to prevent OpenAI from using the alleged trade secrets while litigation proceeds, with a hearing set for October 1, 2026 . OpenAI is pushing for dismissal before discovery, arguing that the case should not proceed at all .

The outcome could have significant implications for trade secrets law in the tech industry, particularly regarding what constitutes "reasonable security measures" when employees routinely use personal accounts for work and access controls are loosely managed.