{"id":14473,"date":"2026-10-16T06:00:43","date_gmt":"2026-10-16T06:00:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/krikis.lt\/apple-openai-teismas-iskankstinis-nutraukimas\/"},"modified":"2026-10-16T06:00:43","modified_gmt":"2026-10-16T06:00:43","slug":"apple-openai-teismas-iskankstinis-nutraukimas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/krikis.lt\/en\/apple-openai-court-early-termination\/","title":{"rendered":"Court set to grant Apple preliminary injunction against OpenAI"},"content":{"rendered":"

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is currently hearing one of the most important technology disputes in the industry, the conflict between Apple and OpenAI over alleged trade secrets and hardware development. On October 14, 2026, Judge Edward J. Davila said that it is \u201every likely\u201c that he will grant Apple a preliminary injunction against OpenAI, io Products, and two former Apple employees.<\/p>\n

Context of the court decision<\/h2>\n
\"Data<\/figure>\n

Apple filed a lawsuit on July 10, 2026, accusing OpenAI, its acquisition of io Products (valued at about $6.4 billion), and two former Apple employees, Chang Liu and Tang Yew Tan, of allegedly stealing confidential hardware information. In the lawsuit, Apple alleges that the individuals coordinated their efforts to transfer confidential design and manufacturing process data in an effort to speed up the development of OpenAI devices. Liu, a former Apple engineer, allegedly misused Apple data after leaving, while Tan, now OpenAI\u2019s head of hardware, allegedly used Apple knowledge to develop OpenAI devices.<\/p>\n

On October 13, 2026, the judge partially granted Apple\u2019s request for expedited discovery. The order required the production of forensic photographs and communications records, and allowed the early hearing of four key witnesses, including Liu and Tan. These actions indicate that the court takes Apple\u2019s evidence seriously and wants to quickly determine whether the development of OpenAI\u2019s devices relies on Apple\u2019s confidential information.<\/p>\n

OpenAI's response and legal position<\/h2>\n
\"Business<\/figure>\n

OpenAI has denied Apple's allegations, calling them baseless and repressive. Bloomberg reports that OpenAI has "agreed not to use Apple's trade secrets" as part of its response to the court's demands. The company emphasizes that it has no incentive to use other companies' confidential information and that its device designs are independent.<\/p>\n

It is also important to note that OpenAI claims that its device plans, including a high-end speaker planned for 2027, were in place before the io Products acquisition. If the court upholds the early termination, OpenAI will have to prove that its work does not rely on Apple information, which may require additional technical and documentary evidence.<\/p>\n

Other related events and evidence<\/h2>\n

While the main dispute revolves around trade secrets, some sources have revealed additional facts. The New York Post reported that OpenAI had evidence of a former employee who moved to Apple and sent more than 100 confidential files about the unreleased device to a personal account. The files allegedly included detailed images and engineering data. OpenAI says the former employee may have misrepresented the information, but it has denied that it influenced the development of its devices.<\/p>\n

Another source, Biztoc.com, reports that an OpenAI employee who defected to Apple presented more than 100 files about the unreleased product to Apple executives, suggesting that the flow of information between the two companies is complex and could affect legal battles.<\/p>\n

What can we expect next?<\/h2>\n

The court\u2019s ruling on the early termination has not yet been announced, but Judge Davila has already said it is \u201ehighly likely\u201c that he will be able to grant Apple the relief it seeks. If that happens, OpenAI will have to show that the development of its devices does not depend on Apple\u2019s confidential information. This could mean additional technical inspections, forensic analysis, and potentially additional court hearings.<\/p>\n

This case not only reveals a major clash between two technology giants, but also raises questions about how companies protect their innovations and how courts handle trade secret issues in the rapidly evolving artificial intelligence sector. In the future, we can expect this conflict to become an important source of precedent in both US and international law related to technological development and intellectual property protection.<\/p>\n

Sources<\/h2>\n