A legal battle between Apple and OpenAI has entered a new procedural skirmish as Apple accuses OpenAI of introducing untimely arguments and evidence in response to claims about trade secret protection. The dispute centers on whether Apple properly guarded its trade secrets and whether OpenAI can be held liable if Apple failed in its duty to keep them confidential.
Flip-flop in the Courtroom: Evidence, Page Limits, and Expert Testimony
Initially, OpenAI maintained that it wasn’t responsible for theft of trade secrets. Later, it shifted tactics, arguing that any inability to prove harm or preserve confidentiality should fall on Apple instead. Central to this phase are claims from OpenAI that Apple didn’t do enough to protect its secrets—a point that could potentially undercut Apple’s case if the court accepts it. In response, Apple submitted a rebuttal brief along with expert testimony.
Now, Apple is pushing back. The company alleges OpenAI has overstepped by using new evidence and arguments in its filings—material Apple says OpenAI failed to include earlier when responding. Apple points out that objections to “new evidence” are permitted in the legal guidelines, but strikingly, more extensive argumentation beyond a set page limit (five pages) is not. Apple claims OpenAI filed nine pages instead., putting forward fresh defenses that should have been prohibited under court rules.
Stalling Time—and a Preliminary Injunction
These disputes over evidence and procedural rules come as Apple pressures to fast-track discovery and block OpenAI from harming its case. Apple has argued that delays are causing daily damage—especially since preliminary injunction could prevent OpenAI from launching its planned hardware. OpenAI, meanwhile, has raised objections to what it sees as Apple adding new evidence in order to respond to OpenAI’s contentions.
One key legal issue is whether OpenAI’s filing, which Apple deems excessive in length and scope, improperly revisits the substance of Apple’s preliminary injunction motion. Apple’s retaliation filing is shorter, about three pages, with much of it covering procedural details—like listing counsel—rather than new technical or factual content.
OpenAI’s urgency isn’t just theoretical. With its hardware ambitions looming, Apple insists that delays to discovery and trial could allow OpenAI to move ahead with products before accountability is established. Financially, OpenAI reportedly loses US$1.25 for every dollar it earns—a point Apple brings up to underscore its case for urgency.
This legal back-and-forth is currently confined to filings and court papers. The fight isn’t over merits yet—it’s about how and when each side may introduce arguments, experts, and evidence. The next phase will determine whether Apple’s requests for an injunction and accelerated discovery are granted.
What this reveals is how procedural technicalities—page limits, timing, and permissible scope—can become battlegrounds when intellectual property and high-stakes competition are involved. Apple is pressing hard to shape the terms of engagement before testifying begins. OpenAI will likely argue that every procedural advantage was being leveraged, and that delays hurt its ability to prepare. Going forward, keep an eye on what the judge decides about the preliminary injunction and whether accused instances of “overreach” by OpenAI will survive scrutiny. Stakes: high not just for these two companies, but for precedent in tech legal conflicts.
