Apple will get an early look at how OpenAI recruited its engineers. In an order filed Oct. 13, U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila directed OpenAI to hand over the materials it used to interview former Apple employees for its consumer hardware and robotics teams, along with private messages between two of the engineers at the center of the case.
The ruling does not decide whether anyone stole anything. It decides what Apple gets to see before a judge weighs its request to block the alleged misuse, and it shows that the court considers some of the evidence at risk of disappearing.
What Apple won, and what it didn’t
Judge Davila granted Apple’s motion for expedited discovery in part. He agreed that some of the evidence was time-sensitive, citing digital records such as logs, metadata and device usage data that can be lost. He also pointed to a conversation between two of the engineers about restoring Apple-owned devices.
Granted:
- Forensic images OpenAI and the defendants have already collected, due within five days.
- Interview materials, including checklists, guides, scripts and technical presentations used with Apple candidates for OpenAI’s hardware and robotics groups, due within 14 days.
- Private LINE messages between engineers Chang Liu and Alyssa Peng since Jan. 1, 2026, due within 14 days.
- Depositions of Liu, Peng and OpenAI chief hardware officer Tang Yew Tan, all former Apple employees, limited to set topics, plus a corporate witness on the roles those employees hold at OpenAI.
Denied or deferred:
- OpenAI’s own research on metal finishes, power management and batteries. Apple can seek it through ordinary discovery instead.
- Anything covering “Apple Originated Information.” The judge called the term amorphous and gave Apple five days to propose a narrower definition.
- A deposition of a fourth person, denied “at this time.”
How we got here
Apple filed suit on July 10 in federal court in Northern California, alleging trade secret theft and breach of the confidentiality agreements its employees sign. The defendants include OpenAI, io, the hardware startup OpenAI bought in 2025 for a reported $6.5 billion, and several former Apple engineers. Jony Ive, the former Apple design chief who led io, is not named.
Apple’s complaint centers on two people. It says Tang Yew Tan, a 24-year Apple veteran who now runs hardware at OpenAI, used confidential Apple project code names while recruiting and asked candidates to bring Apple components to interviews. It says Chang Liu, a former Apple systems engineer, kept an Apple laptop after leaving, downloaded confidential technical files and coached Apple employees on what to prepare before interviewing at OpenAI.
Apple also says OpenAI used a proprietary Apple metal-finishing technique after misleading a supplier about having Apple’s permission. Apple says it raised its concerns with OpenAI in February and got no reply.
OpenAI denies the claims and in August asked the court to dismiss the case. It called the suit pretextual, arguing that Apple is covering for its struggles to keep talent and build AI into its products. OpenAI also argues that any Apple data on former employees’ devices came from Apple’s own practices, such as telling staff to use personal iCloud accounts for work.
The stakes are not just legal. OpenAI is building its first consumer device, which analysts have suggested could be an AI-first phone that leans on agents instead of apps. That would put it in direct competition with the iPhone.
What changed
The interview itself is now evidence. Hiring away a rival’s engineers is legal, and it is how Silicon Valley has always moved knowledge between companies. What the law forbids is bringing the old employer’s confidential information along. By ordering up interview scripts, checklists and technical presentations, the court is letting Apple test where that line sat inside OpenAI’s recruiting process, not just on individual engineers’ laptops.
The court drew a line between conduct and products. Davila gave Apple fast access to how people were recruited and what they said to each other. He refused, for now, to open up OpenAI’s own research on finishes, batteries and power systems. Apple can pursue that through the normal, slower discovery process, but it cannot use the expedited track to look inside OpenAI’s product development.
Speed matters because evidence fades. The judge’s concern about transient forensic data is why parts of this moved fast. Logs and device records do not wait for a trial, and a conversation about restoring Apple devices helped convince the court that delay carried real risk.
Every company recruiting from a competitor should take note. As AI companies move into devices, they are recruiting from the hardware makers that already know how to build them. This ruling signals that courts may treat a recruiter’s questions, and the materials candidates are asked to prepare, as fair game when a trade secret claim follows.
What to watch
- Within five days: OpenAI turns over forensic images already collected, and Apple must propose a narrower definition of “Apple Originated Information.”
- Within 14 days: OpenAI produces the interview materials and the Liu-Peng LINE messages.
- About a month after that: depositions of Liu, Peng and Tan, plus OpenAI’s corporate witness.
- Still pending: Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction barring OpenAI from using or disclosing the information Apple says was taken. What these documents show could shape that decision.
The case is Apple Inc. v. Chang Liu, et al., No. 5:26-cv-07078-EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Sources: Court order granting in part Apple’s motion for expedited discovery (Oct. 13, 2026); TechCrunch (Oct. 13, 2026); Axios (Aug. 6, 2026); TechCrunch (July 10, 2026).