Apple and OpenAI have opened another procedural front in their ongoing trade secret dispute. The case has not reached trial, yet both companies now disagree over what evidence and arguments belong before the court.
Apple accuses OpenAI of trade secret theft connected with its work on hardware devices. However, the latest dispute focuses less on those underlying allegations and more on the rules governing court filings.
OpenAI Challenges Apple’s Additional Evidence
OpenAI recently argued that Apple improperly introduced additional evidence. According to the source, Apple submitted a briefing and expert testimony after OpenAI questioned whether Apple had adequately protected its trade secrets.
That issue could play an important role in the case. OpenAI’s position, as described in the document, challenges whether the disputed information legally qualifies as protected trade secrets.
Apple, meanwhile, argues that its additional material responded directly to OpenAI’s claims. The company has now accused OpenAI of introducing new arguments in its own objection.
Apple Pushes Back on OpenAI Filing
Apple acknowledges that OpenAI had the right to object to what it considered new evidence. However, Apple says court rules prevented OpenAI from adding further arguments about the underlying motion.
According to Apple’s filing, OpenAI went beyond that restriction. Apple claims its rival used the objection to revisit arguments surrounding Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction.
The disagreement has even reached the length of the filing. Apple says legitimate objections had a five-page limit, while OpenAI submitted nine pages. Apple’s response itself runs three pages, with much of it listing the lawyers involved.
Preliminary Injunction Remains a Key Issue
Apple has pursued a preliminary injunction against OpenAI since the early stages of the dispute. Moreover, it wants discovery to begin early. Apple argues that this could preserve evidence and prevent delays in testimony.
The lawsuit could also affect OpenAI’s planned hardware device, according to the source. Still, the court has not yet resolved the underlying allegations.
