Apple says 11 more ex-employees may have taken its secrets to OpenAI. OpenAI published the chat logs.

Apple's trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI escalated in both directions on August 4, 2026. Apple asked the court for a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery, saying its investigation now points at 11 more former employees beyond the original defendants. OpenAI answered the same day by publishing chat logs that it says show Apple's own staff kept asking a departed engineer for help long after he left.

What Apple filed

The new filing, in federal court in California, asks for a preliminary injunction to stop OpenAI from developing AI devices based on Apple technology while the case runs. Apple's original complaint, filed July 10, named senior systems engineer Chang Liu and former hardware executive Tang Yew Tan. The August filing says 11 additional former employees may be involved, alleges one of them met with Liu and OpenAI employee Yu-Ting Peng ahead of Peng's OpenAI interview to discuss proprietary information, and says another took screenshots of confidential documents about an unannounced Apple product before interviewing at OpenAI. It also says several ex-employees have contacted Apple to return company-issued devices since the suit began.

What OpenAI published

OpenAI's response leans on receipts. Its published logs show that after Liu's last day on January 22, 2026, Apple employees requested a technical assessment from him on January 27, asked him for schematics on February 14, and added him to a group chat with Apple staff on March 5. OpenAI's argument: if Apple's own people kept routing internal information to a departed engineer, the problem is Apple's access management, not systematic theft. Its statement is blunt: 'We do not have, nor want, any of their trade secrets.' The company also catalogued errors by Apple's outside counsel, including a misdirected email.

The backdrop is a talent pipeline

More than 400 former Apple employees now work at OpenAI, many on the hardware effort built around Jony Ive's io. That number is why this case matters beyond the two companies: California does not enforce non-competes, so the line between hiring experienced people and acquiring trade secrets through them is exactly what this court will have to draw. The honest caveat: everything above is an allegation from one side or the other. Nothing has been tested in court yet, and both companies are choosing what to publish for maximum effect.

Why a build studio cares

We build on both companies' platforms, but the transferable lesson is about offboarding. The chat logs OpenAI published describe a failure any company can have: access that outlives employment, and colleagues who route around process because it is faster. If your offboarding checklist cannot survive being read out in federal court, this case is the argument for fixing it.

Next step: read TechCrunch on Apple's filing and The Decoder on OpenAI's response. If you are wiring AI into workflows where access boundaries actually matter, write to us at hello@gattyworks.com.