OpenAI Alleges Device File Theft; Apple Pushes Back

OpenAI alleges that a former employee sent more than 100 confidential files about an unreleased device to personal accounts before joining Apple, then presented information about OpenAI’s product plans to senior Apple leaders.

Apple says it has found no evidence supporting the allegations. According to Reuters reporting, Apple has characterized the accusation as a diversion from its own claims that former employees took confidential Apple information to OpenAI’s hardware business.

The filing, reported on October 14, opens a reciprocal front in an existing trade-secret dispute. It does not establish that Apple received or used OpenAI’s files, or resolve Apple’s allegations against OpenAI. The companies now offer competing accounts of how confidential hardware information may have followed employees between them.

OpenAI’s Allegations Reach Beyond Device Images

According to filing excerpts published by 9to5Mac, the employee previously worked at Apple, spent six months at OpenAI, and then returned to Apple. OpenAI alleges that the transfers occurred on June 2, 2026, the employee’s final day at the company.

The material allegedly concerned at least one unreleased OpenAI device. OpenAI describes a collection containing:

• Detailed device images.
• Engineering and manufacturing data.
• Supplier information and project files.
• Standards for cosmetic finishes.
• Reports about coating and sealing hardware components.

If the files contain what OpenAI describes, they could reveal implementation choices, manufacturing requirements, and supplier relationships alongside the device’s appearance. That explains why OpenAI is treating the alleged transfer as more than a leak of a product concept: an image might disclose what a company intends to build, while engineering and manufacturing documents could disclose aspects of how it intends to build it. The description remains OpenAI’s account of confidential material, however, not an independent assessment of the files.

OpenAI separately alleges that the former employee presented information about its plans to Apple’s senior leadership, including Apple’s vice president of operations in Asia. The company says that presentation appears to have happened months before the filing.

Sending documents to a personal account would not, by itself, demonstrate that they reached Apple’s systems or informed an Apple product. The alleged leadership briefing supplies the claimed connection between the departing employee’s information and people inside Apple. It is related to, but distinct from, the alleged transfer.

Apple’s Response Focuses on Where the Information Went

Apple has challenged specific parts of OpenAI’s account.

In an October 12 letter described by Reuters, Apple’s lawyers said the two personal phone numbers OpenAI identified as recipients of files did not match the number the employee used for Apple work. On that basis, Apple said it appeared not to have possession, custody, or control of data sent to those numbers while the employee worked at OpenAI.

An investigation of repositories associated with the employee’s work had also found no evidence of OpenAI files on Apple’s servers, the lawyers said. They added that Apple had not learned of a presentation about unreleased OpenAI products and asked OpenAI for additional information.

According to Reuters, Apple subsequently told the court that OpenAI had not responded to that request before bringing the issue to court. Apple said it would continue working with OpenAI to investigate the allegations.

The disagreement covers both whether confidential material left OpenAI’s control and whether product information reached Apple leadership. Apple says its investigation has not substantiated OpenAI’s account.

Neither Apple’s reported findings nor OpenAI’s description of its forensic investigation amounts to a court determination about whether a transfer or presentation occurred, or whether Apple received trade secrets. The scope of the searches, the underlying transfer records, and any evidence of a presentation will matter more than either company’s characterization of the dispute.

Apple also says it has policies and procedures intended to prevent new employees from using confidential information belonging to previous employers. Those policies describe its safeguards; they do not independently establish what happened in this instance.

Apple’s Product Launches Do Not Establish a Connection

OpenAI’s filing ties its concerns to Apple’s renewed push into AI-enabled hardware. It points to the HomeView smart display and other products Apple announced that week, suggesting that information from the alleged presentation could influence Apple’s development work.

The product chronology alone does not prove that connection. As The Verge’s report notes, Apple’s product development typically runs on long timelines, and its smart display had been rumored for years. A launch after an alleged presentation does not establish that the presentation caused, accelerated, or changed the product.

Establishing whether confidential OpenAI information reached Apple personnel, and whether anyone used it, would require evidence beyond the proximity of a presentation and a launch.

OpenAI’s concern extends to future products, too. Its filing argues that engineers could use confidential information to shape upcoming Apple devices. The alleged exposure could therefore be important even without evidence of an effect on HomeView, though that remains a concern OpenAI is asking the court to take seriously, not a demonstrated outcome.

The reporting does not establish that any Apple product incorporates OpenAI information. Zeniteq has not independently inspected the confidential files or verified the alleged presentation.

Apple’s Original Case Continues in Parallel

The new allegations arise inside Apple v. Liu, an existing trade-secret case in federal court in San Jose, California. Apple’s underlying complaint accuses former employees of taking confidential information to benefit OpenAI’s hardware division. OpenAI has denied those allegations.

Reuters reported that U.S. District Judge Edward Davila granted part of Apple’s request for accelerated discovery in that original dispute, allowing it to obtain data from some former employees’ devices and question three people under oath on an expedited schedule.

Those depositions include the two defendants: Chang Liu, a former senior systems electrical engineer at Apple, and Tang Yew Tan, a former Apple vice president of product design for iPhone and Apple Watch.

Permission to collect evidence and conduct depositions is not a ruling that Apple’s accusations are true. The original case is moving forward while OpenAI raises its own concerns about information allegedly traveling in the opposite direction.

Reuters reported that the case was likely to reach trial in October 2027, although OpenAI had said it could be ready as early as June 2027. The companies are still contesting access to evidence, with a completed factual record yet to be presented.

The reciprocal accusations do not cancel each other out. Evidence supporting OpenAI’s allegation would not automatically disprove Apple’s case, just as evidence supporting Apple’s complaint would not establish that OpenAI’s information stayed protected.

The Critical Gap Is Between Transfer and Use

For the AI industry, the filing makes hardware competition more contentious without clarifying which company’s account will withstand scrutiny. The dispute now encompasses employee departures in both directions, alleged access to unreleased designs, and competing explanations of what internal investigations have found.

The next meaningful development would be evidence connecting the separate stages of OpenAI’s account: the alleged transfer, any access inside Apple, the claimed leadership presentation, and any subsequent use. Apple’s searches and requests for more information are relevant to that inquiry, but they do not substitute for the underlying records.

OpenAI has raised a specific and serious allegation, and Apple has offered a specific rebuttal. Until evidence connects confidential files to access or use at Apple, the filing remains an escalation of the dispute, not proof that Apple’s AI hardware benefited from OpenAI’s work.