Apple claims ex-employee used stolen circuit designs at OpenAI, then tried to destroy the evidence
A recovered work laptop appears to show the engineer used confidential Apple files inside OpenAI. Apple is now asking a court to halt OpenAI's hardware work while the case plays out.

Key points
- Apple filed new court evidence alleging former employee Chang Liu used a confidential Apple circuit schematic, a technical diagram showing how chips connect, while working at OpenAI.
- Liu's old Apple laptop was handed over to investigators earlier in August 2026 after his legal team agreed to produce it.
- Apple alleges Liu asked OpenAI colleague Yu-Ting Peng to help destroy evidence in June 2026 after learning he was under investigation.
- OpenAI says Liu only accessed Apple files to help former colleagues after leaving the company, and blames Apple's own access-management systems.
- More than 400 former Apple employees now work at OpenAI, according to Apple's original court filing.
A laptop changed everything. When lawyers for former Apple engineer Chang Liu handed his old Apple work computer to investigators earlier this month, Apple says it found what it's calling "shocking evidence" inside.
Apple now alleges, in a court filing, that Liu used a confidential circuit schematic, a detailed diagram showing how electronic components are wired together, during his time at OpenAI. The company also claims Liu used a software tool that shares its name with a private Apple engineering application. We've followed this dispute since Apple first sued OpenAI on 17 July 2026, and this filing is the most specific technical allegation yet.
What does Apple say happened?
Apple says Liu knew exactly what he was doing. Earlier filings included text messages from Liu, complete with "crying laughing" emoji, that Apple says show he was aware he still had access to Apple files after he left. The company claims that access wasn't an accident: Liu "exploited a rare, previously unknown authentication bug," a flaw in the login system, to keep getting in.
Apple also alleges Liu tried to cover his tracks. According to the filing, he asked OpenAI colleague Yu-Ting Peng to help destroy evidence in June, once he learned Apple was investigating him. The company further states OpenAI was "well-aware" of Liu's access to Apple data.
What does OpenAI say?
OpenAI has pushed back firmly. The company says Liu only accessed Apple files after leaving, to help former colleagues who asked for his assistance. In a blog post earlier this month, OpenAI argued that "residual access," the situation where a former employee can still log in to old systems, is a known problem caused by Apple failing to remove access properly when people leave.
OpenAI hadn't responded to Apple's newest allegations, first reported by TechCrunch AI, at the time of publication. In August, as our coverage of OpenAI's earlier counter-filing found, the company released messages it said proved the allegations false. The new laptop evidence complicates that position.
What is Apple asking the court to do?
Apple wants two things urgently. First, it's seeking a preliminary injunction, a temporary court order that would stop OpenAI from working on any hardware built on Apple technology while the lawsuit continues. Second, it wants expedited discovery, a faster-than-normal evidence-gathering process, because Apple suspects other former employees may also be involved. Apple's original filing states that more than 400 of its former employees now work at OpenAI.
The specific files named in the new filing are redacted from public view. No ruling on the injunction has been made.
Common questions
Does this affect OpenAI's products right now?
Not yet. The case is still moving through court. Apple's injunction request, if granted, would freeze specific hardware development, but no ruling has been made.
Should you worry about OpenAI's hardware plans?
The injunction is a real threat. Our earlier reporting noted the lawsuit could slow OpenAI's consumer hardware push and complicate its expected stock market debut. Concrete evidence of schematic use makes that risk harder to dismiss.



