On Friday 10 July 2026, Apple sued OpenAI in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in a case that transcends a simple dispute between two technology giants. The Cupertino company accuses OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI Group PBC, io Products (the division run by Sam Altman), and two former employees of systematic theft of trade secrets, industrial espionage, and misappropriation of confidential hardware information. The case involves Chang Liu, a former senior electrical systems engineer at Apple, and Tang Yew Tan, a former vice-president of product design for the iPhone and Apple Watch. It not only pits two companies that until recently worked closely together. It raises a crucial question for investors and executives worldwide: how do you protect tacit knowledge of supply chains and manufacturing processes when key employees jump from one company to another in the race to dominate AI-powered hardware?
Apple’s lawsuit against OpenAI: allegations of systematic misappropriation
Apple’s lawsuit details with precision the conduct it considers to constitute trade secret theft. The allegations against Chang Liu are particularly serious. According to the text submitted to the court, Liu did not return a work laptop owned by Apple. What is more, he exploited a flaw in the authentication system to access the company’s internal network and downloaded “dozens of confidential files related to hardware” from Apple. The stolen information includes product designs, manufacturing processes, and supply chain strategies, elements that form the core of Apple’s competitive advantage in the electronic devices market.
The accusations against Tang Yew Tan reveal an equally worrying pattern of behaviour. The lawsuit argues that Tan “has been systematically using Apple’s confidential information to benefit OpenAI”. Before leaving the company, Tan emailed himself information about Apple’s suppliers and internal industry briefings. As a former vice-president of product design for the iPhone and Apple Watch, Tan had access to top-level strategic information about Apple’s global supply chain, one of the company’s most valuable and closely guarded assets.
The case is not an isolated incident. According to Reuters, citing sources close to OpenAI, the company has been considering legal action against Apple since May 2026. The possibility of notifying a potential breach of contract was discussed, suggesting that tensions between the two companies have been building for months. The lawsuit filed this Friday represents the definitive escalation of a conflict that had until now remained behind closed doors.
The paradox of the former alliance: from partners to adversaries
To understand the scale of this confrontation, it is necessary to recall that Apple and OpenAI were not always rivals. In 2024, Apple announced the integration of Apple Intelligence into its applications, including Siri, and incorporated ChatGPT into its devices. iPhone users could access ChatGPT responses through Siri, an alliance that seemed to benefit both parties: Apple gained advanced generative artificial intelligence capabilities without having to develop them internally, while OpenAI gained access to the world’s largest user base in the premium smartphone segment.
However, that collaboration has turned into conflict. Apple’s lawsuit suggests that OpenAI, through its io Products division and under the leadership of Sam Altman, has been using information obtained from former employees to accelerate its foray into hardware. OpenAI, which until now has been primarily a provider of software and artificial intelligence services, is seeking to make the leap into manufacturing its own devices. Knowledge of Apple’s supply chain, its manufacturing processes, and its hardware designs is invaluable for any competitor trying to enter that market.
The case raises a legal and business paradox: how far does the protection of trade secrets extend when employees change companies? In the age of artificial intelligence, where tacit knowledge, that which is not written down in any manual but which engineers and executives accumulate through years of experience, is as valuable as confidential files, the traditional boundaries of intellectual property are blurring.
The judicial precedent: how are intangible assets valued?
The trial now opening in the Northern District of California will not only determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. It will set a precedent for how intangible assets are valued in the AI-powered hardware sector. For investors and executives worldwide, the case has direct implications.
First, it defines the risk of hiring former employees of direct competitors, especially those who have held senior positions. If the court rules in Apple’s favour, companies will need to take extreme precautions when recruiting talent from rivals, implementing stricter verification protocols and confidentiality agreements. If it rules in OpenAI’s favour, it will open the door to greater mobility of knowledge between companies, which could accelerate innovation but also weaken the protection of trade secrets.
Second, the case puts on the table the question of how to prove the use of confidential information when it does not consist of documents explicitly marked as secret, but of accumulated knowledge. Apple’s lawsuit against Tan is based on emails containing internal industry briefings and supplier lists. Does that constitute theft of trade secrets, or is it simply the legitimate exercise of the professional memory of an employee changing companies?
The geopolitical and business context: the battle for AI hardware
This litigation does not occur in a vacuum. OpenAI, backed by Microsoft and other investors, has repeatedly announced its ambition to become a device manufacturer. io Products, the division run by Sam Altman, is the vehicle for that strategy. The company seeks to develop hardware that natively integrates its artificial intelligence models, competing directly with Apple in the smart device market.
Apple, for its part, has built its empire on tight control of its supply chain and manufacturing processes. The company invests billions of dollars a year in research and development, and its trade secrets are among its most valuable assets. The lawsuit filed this Friday is a clear signal that Apple is willing to defend that patrimony with all legal means at its disposal.
For the global audience of investors and executives, the case offers a warning: in the race to dominate AI-powered hardware, the line between collaboration and competition is extremely thin. Strategic alliances can turn into legal conflicts within months, and employees who jump from one company to another become the battlefield on which intellectual property is decided.
A reflection on the future: the new order of intellectual property
The Apple versus OpenAI trial is not just another case in the courts of California. It is the first test of a new paradigm in which tacit knowledge, artificial intelligence, and hardware converge to redefine what we understand by intellectual property. In this new order, companies compete not only for patents or registered designs, but for the knowledge that resides in the minds of their engineers and executives.
The ruling that emerges from the Northern District of California will have consequences that go far beyond the two companies involved. It will establish the rules of the game for an industry in which talent mobility is increasingly common and where artificial intelligence makes it possible to process and apply confidential information at unprecedented speed. For investors and executives, the lesson is clear: the protection of intangible assets can no longer be limited to confidentiality agreements and non-compete clauses. It requires a comprehensive strategy spanning talent management, supply chain surveillance, and preparation for litigation that can define the future of a company.
The world is watching. The verdict, when it comes, will decide not only the fate of Liu, Tan, and OpenAI. It will decide how knowledge is protected in the age of artificial intelligence.