Apple accuses OpenAI of improperly adding new arguments to trade secrets case
Apple has accused OpenAI of violating court rules by introducing new arguments and testimony in a trade secrets case, rather than merely objecting to Apple's new evidence.
Intelligence analysis by Gemini 2.5 Flash
In an ongoing legal battle over trade secret misappropriation, Apple claims that OpenAI and co-defendants overstepped procedural boundaries. Apple alleges that OpenAI's recent filing, intended to object to Apple's new evidence in a preliminary injunction request, improperly included fresh arguments and a new declaration, violating court rules.
Imagine two big companies, Apple and OpenAI, are arguing in court over secret ideas. Apple asked the judge to stop OpenAI from using some of its ideas while they sort things out. When Apple showed new information, OpenAI was supposed to just say if they thought the new information was unfair. But Apple says OpenAI didn't just object; they also snuck in lots of new reasons and stories of their own, like adding new rules to a game in the middle of playing. Now Apple wants the judge to look at everything, even the new stuff OpenAI added, to make a fair decision.
Analysis
The legal skirmish between Apple and OpenAI continues to intensify, with the latest development focusing on procedural conduct rather than the core allegations of trade secret misappropriation. Apple has filed a response accusing OpenAI and its co-defendants, including former Apple employees Chang Liu and Tang Tan, of exceeding the permissible scope of a legal filing. This particular dispute centers on a request for a preliminary injunction, which Apple seeks to prevent its trade secrets from being further integrated into OpenAI's hardware development while the main case proceeds.
Rule 7-3(d)(1)
Apple's primary contention revolves around a specific court rule, Rule 7-3(d)(1), which governs objections to new evidence in reply briefs. This rule explicitly states that such filings "may not include further argument on the motion." Apple argues that OpenAI and the other defendants disregarded this restriction, using their objection filing not just to challenge Apple's new evidence but to "relitigate the merits of Apple’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction." For instance, Apple points out that the defendants disputed the basis of an expert's analysis and attempted to counter Apple's positions on whether certain information is public, which Apple asserts are arguments on the motion's merits, not simple objections to evidence. This procedural misstep, according to Apple, undermines the integrity of the legal process and attempts to introduce new substantive points without proper authorization.
Mr. Liu
Among the most significant alleged overreaches, Apple highlights a new declaration submitted by Mr. Liu, one of the former employees named in the lawsuit. Apple describes this declaration as "the most egregious overreach," noting that it comprises "eight paragraphs of new testimony." This testimony, Apple claims, was used by the defendants to offer explanations for Mr. Liu's actions, such as wiping data from his iMac before returning it to Apple, clarifying text messages with an Apple supplier, and attempting to justify his use of confidential Apple computer files. Apple argues that such testimony directly violates the prohibition against "further argument on the motion" and constitutes an improper introduction of new evidence and arguments. Furthermore, Apple points out that the combined filing and declaration exceeded the court's five-page limit, adding another layer to the procedural violations.
October 14
Despite accusing the defendants of these procedural violations, Apple has taken a pragmatic stance regarding the court's path forward. While acknowledging that OpenAI's filing is more akin to an unauthorized "sur-reply" than a mere objection, Apple suggests that since the defendants have now presented new arguments and evidence, the court should consider the entire record. Apple argues that rather than striking any of Apple's reply evidence, the court should deny the defendants' request to do so and instead decide the Preliminary Injunction motion based on a full review, encompassing both Apple's reply arguments and the new arguments and evidence improperly submitted by the defendants. This approach aims to ensure a comprehensive review ahead of the scheduled hearing on Apple’s preliminary injunction request, which is set for October 14. The court's decision on this procedural matter could set a precedent for how evidence and arguments are handled throughout the remainder of this high-profile trade secrets case.
Key points
- Apple accuses OpenAI and co-defendants of improperly introducing new arguments and testimony in a trade secrets case.
- The dispute centers on OpenAI's response to Apple's request for a preliminary injunction, which Apple claims violated court rules.
- Apple alleges OpenAI's filing went beyond objecting to new evidence, instead relitigating the merits of the preliminary injunction motion.
- A new declaration from former Apple employee Mr. Liu is cited as an "egregious overreach," containing new testimony and exceeding page limits.
- Apple suggests the court consider the full record, including both sides' arguments, rather than striking Apple's evidence, ahead of the October 14 hearing.
If the court sides with Apple's procedural objections, it could streamline the legal process by ensuring adherence to court rules, potentially preventing OpenAI from introducing new arguments without proper procedure and leading to a more focused preliminary injunction hearing.
Should the court allow OpenAI's new arguments and evidence, it could complicate the preliminary injunction decision, potentially prolonging the initial stages of the lawsuit and setting a precedent for less stringent adherence to procedural rules in future filings.
