Apple wants a judge to halt OpenAI hardware plans

No judge has halted OpenAI's hardware plans yet. As of October 12, 2026, we could not find a ruling on Apple's request for a preliminary injunction, and OpenAI's motion to dismiss the whole case is also pending. What Apple is asking for is narrower than "stop the device": it wants OpenAI and two former employees kept away from Apple's claimed trade secrets while the case runs. The fight has also grown a great deal since August, with new allegations, 11 more former employees named and a fight over deleted data.

What changed since August

• The hearing slipped, or is unclear. Most coverage through September lists October 1 for Judge Edward Davila's hearing in San Jose. A 9to5Mac report from October 5 says arguments are scheduled for October 14. We found no ruling, so check the docket.
• OpenAI moved to dismiss the case on August 5, arguing Apple never identified real trade secrets.
• Apple named 11 more former employees as people who "may have been witnesses or otherwise involved."
• Evidence fights began. Apple says two people discussed restoring Apple-issued devices, and both sides are now arguing over which evidence the judge may read.

What Apple actually asked for

Apple's August 3 motion asks for a preliminary injunction, a court order that freezes things in place while a case runs. A judge grants one only if the party asking is likely to win and would suffer harm that money cannot fix. It also asks for expedited discovery, which speeds up the exchange of evidence.

The target is people and information, not a product. Apple wants OpenAI, its hardware startup io Products and two former employees, Chang Liu and Tang Tan, barred from accessing, using or disclosing Apple's claimed confidential information. AppleInsider's reading of the filing says Apple argues money cannot repair the harm.

Apple also offered a way out. According to AI Weekly, Apple said it would drop the injunction request if OpenAI accepted five conditions. OpenAI accepted three and rejected two, and the two it rejected concerned forensic access to its devices, drives, accounts and network locations. That detail suggests the real fight is over inspection of OpenAI's systems.

!Timeline of the Apple v. OpenAI filing calendar: the August 3 injunction motion, the August 5 motion to dismiss, the September briefs and the hearing listed for October 1 or October 14

What Apple alleges

The complaint, filed in July, makes specific claims. Treat all of them as allegations, because no court has tested them.

Defendant	Role	What Apple alleges
Chang Liu	Senior system electrical engineer at Apple for eight years	Used an authentication bug after joining OpenAI to reach Apple's confidential repository for weeks and downloaded dozens of engineering files
Tang Tan	Former Apple vice president of product design, now OpenAI's chief hardware officer	Used Apple's internal project codenames to question job candidates about unreleased products
OpenAI and io Products	Employer and hardware startup	Structured interviews to extract engineering and supplier details and encouraged candidates to bring prototypes and CAD files

The allegations come from iGeeksBlog's summary of the complaint and Apple's opposition. Later filings add dates: Liu left Apple on January 22, 2026, per Tech Times, and allegedly downloaded a schematic file on March 7 and ran a circuit simulation on March 18, according to Law Commentary.

!Timeline of the allegations against Chang Liu: leaving Apple on January 22, downloading a schematic on March 7, running a simulation on March 18, June messages about restoring devices and the August 21 handover of a MacBook for forensic examination

Apple also says Liu and an OpenAI employee exchanged messages in June, after learning they were the subject of an internal Apple investigation. In Apple's account, Liu told the employee to have Apple-issued devices "restored" and then use them again, which could overwrite logs and metadata. Liu's lawyers handed over a MacBook for forensic examination on August 21. A new declaration from Liu addresses why he erased data from his iMac and his use of a confidential Apple file, and Apple called it "the most egregious overreach."

How OpenAI is fighting back

OpenAI says Apple's request is based on false information and is unnecessary because it neither has nor wants Apple's trade secrets. Its 31-page motion to dismiss, reported by Tech Times, makes four arguments:

1. Apple did not identify its trade secrets precisely enough. Tech Times notes that Ninth Circuit precedent imposes no such particularity requirement at the pleading stage, so this argument looks weak alone.
2. Apple's own security was lax. OpenAI says Apple let employees use personal iCloud accounts for work and failed to revoke access after they left. It writes that Apple "cannot transform the foreseeable consequences of its own systems and policies into evidence of theft." This targets the legal requirement that a company take reasonable measures to protect its secrets.
3. No company-level wrongdoing. Even if individuals acted improperly, OpenAI says Apple has not alleged that OpenAI directed or ratified it.
4. Tan followed normal recruiting practice. OpenAI says a document Apple calls a guide to evading offboarding was used to make sure new hires followed Apple's rules.

Apple's opposition, filed August 19, says the motion "relies on distortion, speculation, and improper extrinsic evidence." It argues that a manager's question is not authorization to access a confidential repository.

Can a judge actually halt the device?

Directly, no. Indirectly, yes, and the distinction decides how worried OpenAI should be. A trade secret is business information that has value because rivals do not have it and the owner takes reasonable steps to protect it. Federal claims run through the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which limits orders that would simply stop a person from taking a job. An order has to rest on actual or threatened misappropriation, not on what someone knows.

What Apple asked for	Direct effect if granted	Effect on a device schedule
Bar on using claimed trade secrets	OpenAI must separate the disputed material	Rework where designs overlap
Limits on two named engineers	They step back from related work	Loss of senior expertise
Expedited discovery	Faster document and deposition demands	Engineering time spent on the case
Forensic inspection of devices	Apple examines OpenAI's systems	Disclosure risk for both sides

Nothing in the right-hand column says a product is blocked. The realistic worst case for OpenAI is a court order that walls off certain people and files, plus a distraction. The standard defense is clean-room work, which means showing the design was built from scratch without the disputed files.

Four ways this could go

We cannot predict the ruling, but the possible outcomes are easy to list, and each has a different meaning for the device.

Outcome	What happens	What it means for the device
Injunction granted, narrowly	Named people and files are walled off	Some rework and a hit to senior staffing, no halt
Injunction denied, case continues	Discovery proceeds on the normal schedule	Months of litigation overhead
Motion to dismiss granted	Apple may amend and refile	A reset, with the same questions returning
Settlement	Terms are private	Unknown, often includes inspection or segregation steps

Trade secret cases often run for a year or more after an interim ruling, so the second row would be a common path. The key point for anyone following the device is that none of the four outcomes cancels a product by itself. The schedule risk comes from distraction and staffing, and those effects are hard to see from outside.

Why the motion to dismiss matters as much

The injunction gets the headlines, but the motion to dismiss decides whether discovery happens at all. If the judge grants it, Apple may be allowed to amend its complaint rather than lose. If the judge denies it, OpenAI faces discovery into its hardware program as it works toward its first devices. Either outcome is a procedural step, not a verdict on who is right.

Courts also treat timing as evidence. Apple sued in July and sought interim relief within weeks, which supports its claim of urgency. The months of briefing since then give OpenAI room to argue that nothing is urgent, though we have no ruling to show how the judge sees it.

What to watch next

• The ruling on the injunction, which sets the terms for the rest of the case.
• The ruling on the motion to dismiss, which decides whether discovery happens.
• Whether the 11 additional former employees are added as defendants. Apple has so far called them possible witnesses.
• The forensic fight. The two conditions OpenAI refused concern inspection of its systems, so any order on that point would be the most intrusive result.

A lawsuit is a claim, not a finding. The court has not found that OpenAI or the former employees stole anything or destroyed evidence.

The takeaway

The August framing, "Apple wants to block OpenAI's gadget," overstated the request, and the October reality is a slower and more procedural fight. The court is deciding whether to wall off two engineers and some files, and whether the case proceeds at all. If you are tracking the device, watch the injunction ruling and the motion to dismiss, not the product announcements.