A federal judge has refused Oppo’s bid to toss out Apple’s accusations that an ex-employee stole trade secrets related to the Apple Watch before joining the Chinese tech firm. The legal fight, which centers on intellectual property and non-disclosure agreements, is now clear to move forward.
What happened
In August 2025, Apple filed suit alleging that Dr. Chen Shi, formerly employed by Apple, downloaded dozens of confidential documents—63 in one instance—in the final days before his departure. He’s accused of transferring them to a USB drive. Apple also claims that Shi held one-on-one meetings with the Apple Watch technical team to gain insight into ongoing projects and misled his employer about his true intention in resigning, saying he was leaving to care for family members rather than join a competitor. Documents suggest he researched how to cover up his digital tracks as well.
Judge Lee’s ruling
On October 1, 2026, U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee denied Oppo’s motion to dismiss. The decision states that Apple’s claims of breach of contract are sufficiently detailed to survive dismissal. Specifically, Apple’s allegations about trade secret misappropriation are described as “plausible” multiple times throughout the ruling. While Oppo argued that the allegedly stolen information does not constitute a trade secret—and that Apple’s definition is overly broad—Judge Lee disagreed. She ruled that the contract signed by Shi prohibits only disclosure of confidential information and does not restrict his ability to work generally in the health-sensing or wearable engineering fields.
Next steps and legal deadlines
Apple’s lawsuit now proceeds. Oppo and InnoPeak Technology have until October 21, 2026 to submit a responsive pleading laying out their defenses. The case has also seen delays: the court had ordered Oppo to comply with discovery by October 31, 2025, a deadline the company purportedly missed. Apple has additionally requested a preliminary injunction to prevent destruction of evidence; Judge Lee is still considering that motion.
Oppo, while not a major name in the U.S. market, is a serious rival in smartwatches—especially in China—where Apple is a dominant force in wearables.
Bringing trade secret cases of this kind often involves threading fine lines: protecting corporate research and IP while not unduly restricting engineers’ ability to work in their field. Apple had to show enough specificity in its claims to clear that threshold. Oppo’s effort to have the case dismissed failed because the judge found Apple met the minimum bar for alleging misappropriation under the non-disclosure and IP agreement.
This case is worth watching closely—not only for how it might affect trade secret litigation in the tech sector broadly, but for what it’ll reveal in the Apple–Oppo relationship. With key deadlines approaching, especially on the responsive pleading and possible injunction, observers should be ready for a sharper contest in court.
