OpenAI and the other defendants in Apple’s trade secret misappropriation lawsuit have filed a new motion asking the court to strike two expert declarations and ignore additional evidence Apple recently submitted. Here are the details.
A bit of context
As frequent Digitio readers probably know, Apple recently filed a trade secret theft lawsuit against OpenAI, Jony Ive’s io Products, and two former employees: Chang Liu and Tang Tan.
In short, Apple alleges its former employees took or accessed confidential hardware information after leaving the company and used it to aid OpenAI’s consumer hardware efforts.
Apple specifically claims Chang Liu accessed confidential engineering files after leaving Apple, while Tang Tan allegedly sought confidential information from Apple employees who were interviewing for jobs.
As part of the lawsuit, Apple has requested a preliminary injunction that would bar OpenAI and the other defendants from accessing, using, disclosing, or soliciting Apple’s confidential information and trade secrets.
According to Apple, the injunction would keep its trade secrets from becoming further embedded in OpenAI’s hardware development while the case proceeds.
Apple files new evidence, OpenAI shoots back
As part of the back‑and‑forth over Apple’s motion for this preliminary injunction, Apple last week filed a reply brief supported by five expert declarations totaling 126 pages, plus 13 exhibits. The experts were Daniel Roffman, James Pooley, Dr. Ayman Fayed, Dr. Paul Hatch, and Dr. Jude Runge.
In these documents Apple argued that OpenAI’s opposition did not undermine its trade secret claims and pointed to additional evidence it says supports its allegations against Liu, Tan, OpenAI, and io Products.
The expert declarations also detailed Apple’s security practices, forensic evidence from Liu’s devices, the value of its power‑management trade secrets, and the secrecy of its metal‑finishing processes—two central issues in the lawsuit.
Now OpenAI and the other defendants are pushing back, accusing Apple of improperly using its reply brief to introduce new evidence and expert opinions, including material they say could have been presented earlier, thereby depriving the defendants of a fair chance to respond.
From the fling:
Apple submitted with its reply brief five new expert declarations (including one entirely new expert), totaling 126 pages, along with numerous new exhibits. These declarations go well beyond the scope of Apple’s opening brief and the defendants’ opposition, and in any event do not remedy Apple’s deficient motion.
The defendants also examine the new expert declarations in detail, arguing that Apple is effectively trying to bolster its original motion with new material after seeing the defendants’ response.
Among other points, they contend that Runge was brought in as an entirely new expert to reinforce testimony Apple had already submitted, and that Fayed offered new opinions that could have been included earlier.
They add that Pooley relied on an investigation conducted only after Apple filed its original motion, and that Roffman introduced evidence they say was available to Apple before that filing, while also presenting some of Liu’s communications out of context.
As a result, the defendants are asking the court to strike two of the new declarations, including Roffman’s five exhibits, and to disregard other evidence and opinions they say were improperly introduced.
Interestingly, they request that if the court decides to consider Roffman’s declaration and exhibits anyway, it also take into account a new declaration Liu filed, offering his own explanation of the messages and device activity that Apple cited as evidence against him.
You can read OpenAI’s new filing below. Apple’s filing from last week is available here.
Worth checking out on Amazon