Apple goes to war with OpenAI: 400 employees leave to wage an AI hardware battle

Apple officially sues OpenAI, accusing it of systematically recruiting 400 former employees and stealing trade secrets. The competition between the two has expanded from the AI software arena into the hardware battlefield.
(Background recap: OpenAI poached talent too aggressively—Apple sued! More than 400 employees got raises and still couldn’t be kept)
(Additional context: Apple accuses OpenAI of poaching and stealing confidential information: interview submissions of design files, taking laptops but not returning them, downloading thousands of page files..)

Table of contents

Toggle

• Apple formally sues OpenAI
• Suspicion over the departure of 400 employees
• Accelerating AI hardware layout
• Potential impacts of the lawsuit

Apple and OpenAI’s tussle—once centered on AI model and systems cooperation—has officially escalated to the courtroom. According to The Information, Apple has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and several former Apple employees in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accusing them of long-term, organized acquisition of Apple trade secrets for developing consumer AI hardware products. Apple says that since OpenAI launched its hardware project, more than 400 former Apple employees have joined the company, including the former head of iPhone products, current OpenAI Chief Hardware Officer Tang Tan, and technical staff Chang Liu.

This is the first public legal clash between the two after their relationship deteriorated rapidly. Two years ago, Apple had integrated ChatGPT into Apple Intelligence, and it was viewed as one of OpenAI’s most important partners; now, the focus of their battle has shifted from AI software to consumer hardware.

Apple formally sues OpenAI

In the lawsuit, Apple argues this is not ordinary labor mobility, but rather a systematic recruitment plan organized around AI hardware.

The complaint reveals that Tang Tan is one of the key recruiting leads for OpenAI’s hardware team. Apple claims that before leaving, he discussed supply-chain matters with OpenAI or its partners, and sent himself information about Apple suppliers and internal industry data. After joining OpenAI, he also, during the hiring process, required some candidates who were still working at Apple to brief him on the status of unreleased products, and even brought Apple hardware components to interviews to obtain additional internal information.

Apple also accuses that during the hiring process, OpenAI required candidates to share R&D information such as product design, CAD files, prototype units, supplier collaboration methods, and system integration tools, and provided new employees with advice on how to avoid having the relevant actions discovered by Apple’s security team. The above content comes from Apple’s complaint and is still only Apple’s unilateral allegations, not yet recognized by the court.

Suspicion over the departure of 400 employees

Apple also lists another former employee, Chang Liu, as a defendant.

According to the complaint, after leaving Apple, Chang Liu kept an Apple work computer and used a previously unknown authentication vulnerability in Apple’s enterprise systems to access and download dozens of confidential files related to hardware research and development.

AI hardware rollout accelerates

Apple further claims that Chang Liu also advised Apple employees being recruited by OpenAI on how to copy internal data without being detected by Apple’s security team. During the investigation, Apple determined that it had uncovered a broader pattern: some former employees who joined OpenAI had transmitted Apple internal data to personal email accounts before resigning, while others used the trade secrets they possessed to participate in OpenAI hardware R&D.

OpenAI’s response states that the company is “not interested in other companies’ trade secrets” and has always focused on developing innovative AI technology. Neither Tang Tan nor Chang Liu has publicly responded to the allegations.

Potential impacts of the lawsuit

The background of Apple’s lawsuit is that OpenAI is rapidly advancing its AI hardware layout.

Last year, OpenAI acquired io Products, founded by Tang Tan and former Apple Chief Designer Jony Ive, for approximately $6.5 billion in an all-stock transaction; io Products became an important foundation for OpenAI’s hardware business.

Earlier, The Information pointed out that OpenAI has been discussing multiple products with suppliers, including screenless smart speakers, AI glasses, digital recording devices, and wearable devices, and plans to launch its first batch of products from the end of 2026 to the beginning of 2027. In the lawsuit, Apple also notes that OpenAI has hired large numbers of Apple hardware employees from multiple teams, including product design, disclosure, antennas, supply chain management, and procurement.

At the same time, Apple accuses that OpenAI misled an Apple supply-chain partner, making it believe that it had received authorization from Apple—thereby providing OpenAI with a metal surface processing process for internal Apple use.

This lawsuit is not only about employee movement; it also suggests that the struggle between Apple and OpenAI is entering a new phase.

Apple believes that in the process of building OpenAI’s hardware business, a large amount of Apple trade secrets have been relied upon; meanwhile, OpenAI has not publicly released any hardware products. The above allegations still need to be litigated in court and tested against evidence.

Based on past experience, intellectual property litigation involving Apple and companies such as Samsung and Qualcomm often lasts for several years, so this case may not necessarily disrupt OpenAI’s product release timeline in the near term. However, for an AI company that has already submitted an IPO filing in secret and is preparing to enter the consumer hardware market, this lawsuit adds uncertainty on legal and compliance fronts—and also means that the AI hardware race is extending further from model capabilities and talent competition into intellectual property and supply-chain disputes.