Apple’s New OpenAI Filing Alleges a Former Engineer Used a Secret Circuit Design With an AI Agent

Apple’s supplemental filing adds a more specific allegation to its trade-secrets lawsuit against OpenAI: Apple says former senior electrical engineer Chang Liu accessed a confidential power-converter schematic after joining OpenAI, used it in an LTspice simulation and worked with an AI agent to analyze and refine the results. 15

The evidence, according to Apple, came from preliminary forensic work on a MacBook that Liu’s attorneys handed over on August 21. The allegations are part of Apple’s effort to obtain expedited discovery and preserve its request for a preliminary injunction. They remain allegations, not established findings by the court. OpenAI has called the broader claims meritless and says any continued access to Apple material resulted from Apple’s own offboarding controls. 12

What Apple says happened

Apple alleges that Liu downloaded a confidential circuit schematic from third-party cloud storage on March 7, 2026—about two months after joining OpenAI in January. It says the file was later used through the MacBook’s “changliu” account to run an LTspice simulation on March 18. 15

According to Apple’s account, simulation-related files were created on a separate Mac Mini, uploaded to iCloud and synchronized to the MacBook. Apple is seeking access to the Mac Mini as it continues examining how the material moved between devices. 515

Apple also points to messages that it says show Liu using an AI agent to learn LTspice, inspect simulation results and adjust compensation parameters. The company says the agent reduced work that might otherwise have taken about a day to roughly two hours. 5

Why the AI-agent allegation is significant

The filing raises a question that is more complicated than whether a confidential file remained on a laptop: what happens when trade-secret material is supplied to an AI system that can learn from or act on it?

Apple argues that placing proprietary information into a learning agent could create continuing and potentially irreversible propagation of the secret. That theory would make ordinary remedies—such as deleting a file, returning a device or inspecting a computer—less straightforward if the system retained information or used it to generate engineering output. 5

The filing does not, by itself, establish that an AI model retained Apple’s schematic, trained on it or transferred it elsewhere. The key factual questions will be what information the agent received, what it stored, how it was configured and whether any OpenAI product or system incorporated the information.

Apple’s allegation of anti-forensic conduct

Apple further alleges that Liu instructed OpenAI colleague Yu-Ting “Alyssa” Peng to factory-reset Apple-issued devices after Liu learned of Apple’s internal investigation in June. Apple characterizes the alleged resets—and the subsequent use of the devices—as conduct that could have destroyed or obscured evidence. 5

If substantiated, that allegation could strengthen Apple’s argument for urgent preservation measures and broader forensic discovery. It also creates a separate dispute over intent: a device reset may have an ordinary operational explanation, but Apple is asking the court to view the alleged timing and instructions as evidence-preservation misconduct.

The procedural stakes

Apple filed the new material to support expedited discovery in its broader case against Liu, former Apple executive Tang Yew Tan, OpenAI and OpenAI’s hardware subsidiary io Products. The underlying lawsuit accuses the defendants of misappropriating confidential Apple information in connection with OpenAI’s consumer-hardware ambitions. 2311

Apple has also asked the court for a preliminary injunction that would bar the defendants from accessing, acquiring, using or disclosing the asserted confidential information while the litigation proceeds. 2

The supplemental evidence matters procedurally because allegations of identifiable post-employment use are more targeted than a claim that an employee merely retained files. Apple’s request still faces the burden of showing that the information qualifies as a protectable trade secret, that it was misappropriated or threatened with use, and that emergency relief is justified.

OpenAI’s position

OpenAI says Apple’s claims are meritless, that it neither possesses nor wants Apple’s trade secrets, and that any lingering access was caused by inadequate Apple offboarding rather than misappropriation. OpenAI did not immediately comment on the supplemental filing described in the reporting. 17

That distinction is central to the case. Apple’s new filing attempts to show use after Liu joined OpenAI; OpenAI’s response disputes both the interpretation of the access and the significance of the underlying security controls.

What happens next

Defendants were directed to submit a response of no more than five pages by September 4, 2026. Judge Edward J. Davila is scheduled to hear the matter on October 1, 2026. 19

The next stage is therefore likely to focus on evidence rather than headlines: the contents and history of the relevant devices, the behavior of the AI agent, the identity of any systems that received the schematic and whether the alleged resets affected the ability to reconstruct events.

For now, Apple’s filing strengthens its argument that the dispute involves possible use of a specific technical secret, not simply employee mobility or residual account access. But whether that evidence supports an injunction—or ultimately proves trade-secret misappropriation—will be decided through the court process.