What happened
TechCrunch reports that Apple submitted new evidence in its lawsuit against OpenAI after Liu’s former Apple work laptop was turned over for investigation. Apple alleges Liu used confidential company information at OpenAI and later worked with an OpenAI colleague to destroy evidence. The filing is not publicly available in full, and the newest evidence is redacted.
TechCrunch reports that Apple made the allegations in a court filing in its lawsuit against OpenAI. The new material followed the handover earlier in August of a work laptop formerly used by Chang Liu, a former Apple employee who now works at OpenAI, to investigators through Liu’s legal counsel. TechCrunch says Apple described the filing as evidence that its trade secrets were being used and that evidence was being destroyed. The allegations and the characterization of the evidence have not been independently confirmed by the source. The report presents the development as a new stage of the litigation, while leaving the underlying materials unavailable for public review.
According to TechCrunch, Apple alleges that Liu used a confidential Apple circuit schematic in his work at OpenAI. Apple also points to a tool that shares a name with an internal Apple engineering application. The public filing does not reveal the new evidence in full because the relevant material is redacted. The report therefore does not establish how the schematic was obtained, whether it was copied or transferred, how the tool name was used, or whether either item influenced OpenAI hardware development. That limitation leaves the evidentiary significance of both references unresolved in the account.
TechCrunch reports that Apple further alleges Liu recruited OpenAI colleague Yu-Ting Peng to help destroy evidence in June, after Liu learned Apple was investigating him. The report says earlier Apple filings included text messages in which Liu appeared aware that he still had access to Apple files. Those earlier materials are part of Apple’s case, but the source does not provide an independent forensic finding or a court determination validating Apple’s interpretation of the messages. The reported chronology is therefore based on the parties’ filings as described by TechCrunch.
OpenAI has previously defended Liu, according to TechCrunch, saying that he accessed Apple files after leaving the company to help former colleagues who requested assistance. OpenAI also argued that residual access was a recurring Apple systems-management problem. Apple disputes that explanation and claims Liu exploited a rare, previously unknown authentication bug. TechCrunch requested comment from OpenAI about the newest allegations, but the source does not report a response.
Source details: techcrunch.com ↗
Why it matters
The allegations place trade-secret protection, employee offboarding, and information security at the center of a dispute between Apple and OpenAI. Apple is seeking a preliminary injunction that would restrict OpenAI’s work on hardware based on Apple technology, along with expedited discovery into whether other former employees may be involved.
If Apple’s allegations are substantiated, the case would illustrate how access that remains active after an employee leaves can become a serious channel for proprietary data exposure. The dispute is especially consequential because the alleged recipient is OpenAI, whose products and hardware ambitions make access to specialized engineering information commercially significant. The source does not independently confirm that any Apple trade secret was incorporated into an OpenAI product. It also makes the handling of former-employee access a central operational issue in the reported dispute.
The requested remedies could affect an active AI-company development program. TechCrunch reports that Apple is seeking a preliminary injunction that would block OpenAI from working on hardware based on Apple technology while the lawsuit proceeds. Apple is also seeking expedited discovery, a faster evidence-gathering process, because it believes more former employees could be implicated. These are requests, not orders, and the source reports no ruling on them. The requested relief could shape the timetable and boundaries of the case before the merits are decided.
The dispute also raises questions about responsibility across both sides of an employee transition. Apple says Liu exploited an authentication flaw, while OpenAI says Apple failed to manage access properly after departure. Those competing accounts matter beyond this case because companies increasingly recruit from one another while moving sensitive code, designs, and engineering knowledge across organizational boundaries. The source does not establish which company’s account is correct.
What to watch next
The key next developments are OpenAI’s response, the court’s decisions on Apple’s requested injunction and expedited discovery, and what further evidence emerges about Liu’s access, the alleged authentication bug, the circuit schematic, the internal tool, and the alleged destruction of evidence. The source does not independently establish that the alleged conduct occurred.
The immediate development to watch is OpenAI’s response to the latest filing. TechCrunch says it requested comment but does not report a new response. A substantive reply could address whether OpenAI knew about Liu’s access, whether Liu or Peng handled Apple materials, and whether the alleged schematic or tool reference was used in any OpenAI work. The response may also indicate which portions of Apple’s account OpenAI contests.
The court’s treatment of Apple’s procedural requests will determine how quickly the dispute develops. A preliminary injunction would impose restrictions before a final judgment, while expedited discovery could require the parties to produce evidence on a shortened schedule. The source gives no indication that either request has been granted, denied, or resolved. Those rulings would provide the first clear indication of how the court is managing the dispute.
Further discovery may clarify the alleged authentication bug, the duration and scope of Liu’s access, the identity of any additional former Apple employees under review, and the meaning of the redacted evidence. It may also show whether the alleged destruction of evidence can be verified through device records, messages, or other forensic material. Until those issues are tested in court, the reported conduct should remain described as Apple’s allegation rather than an established fact. The record could remain incomplete while the filing stays redacted.