Apple is escalating its legal battle with OpenAI, claiming more ex-employees may have shared trade secrets. The company seeks expedited discovery to investigate 11 former employees allegedly involved in passing proprietary information to OpenAI, including Chang Liu and Tang Yew Tan. A former engineer reportedly discussed unannounced Apple products with OpenAI contacts, while another took screenshots of confidential documents. Apple also alleges ex-employees attempted to return work devices to the company. OpenAI counters that Apple’s claims are baseless, citing text messages showing Apple mishandled access controls. The lawsuit, which includes io Products (founded by Jony Ives) as a co-defendant after a $6.5 billion acquisition, highlights tensions over alleged misconduct. Expedited discovery aims to uncover further evidence of trade secret breaches.

Apple’s filing emphasizes new revelations, including a former employee’s meeting with Liu before his OpenAI interview and screenshots of unreleased product details. These claims suggest systemic issues in Apple’s post-employment protocols. OpenAI maintains it does not possess or seek Apple’s trade secrets, dismissing the injunction request as unnecessary. The company shared text exchanges where Apple employees sought file locations from Liu post-departure, reinforcing its defense.

The involvement of Jony Ives—a former Apple design chief—adds complexity. His startup io Products’ role in the lawsuit underscores the high stakes. Apple’s push for expedited discovery indicates urgency, possibly linked to OpenAI’s rumored AI speaker project. While OpenAI has not responded to the latest filing, the case hinges on whether former employees intentionally shared sensitive information. The outcome could set precedents for tech industry trade secret disputes.

The legal battle reflects broader concerns about employee mobility and intellectual property protection in tech. Apple’s allegations, if proven, could impact OpenAI’s product development. Meanwhile, the $6.5 billion io Products deal highlights the financial motivations behind the lawsuit. Both companies face reputational and operational risks as the case unfolds.