OpenAI and other defendants in Apple’s trade secret fraud lawsuit filed new documents, asking the court to strike two expert testimony and ignore other evidence Apple recently submitted. Here are the details.
A little context
As 9to5Mac readers are already aware, Apple recently filed a trade secret lawsuit against OpenAI, Jony Ive’s io product, and two former employees: Chang Liu and Tang Tan.
In short, Apple is accusing its former employees of taking or accessing confidential hardware data after leaving the company and using it to benefit OpenAI’s consumer efforts.
Apple specifically alleged that Chang Liu accessed confidential engineering files after leaving Apple, while alleging that Tang Tan sought confidential information from Apple employees interviewing for jobs.
As part of the lawsuit, Apple asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting OpenAI and other defendants from accessing, using, disclosing, or soliciting Apple’s confidential information and trade secrets.
According to Apple, the order will prevent its trade secrets from being embedded in OpenAI hardware development at the same time as the case.
Apple submits new evidence, OpenAI fires back
As part of the legal return on its motion for this preliminary injunction, Apple last week filed a brief response supported by five expert declarations totaling 126 pages, along with 13 exhibits. Experts are Daniel Roffman, James Pooley, Dr. Ayman Fayed, Dr. Paul Hatch, and Dr. Jude Runge.
In these documents, Apple argued that OpenAI’s opponents failed to break its trade secret claims, and pointed to additional evidence that it said supports its allegations against Liu, Tan, OpenAI, and io products.
At the same time, the expert’s statement, resolved and more detailed issues such as Apple’s security practices, forensic evidence from Liu’s device, the value of trade secrets of energy management, and the secrets of the metal finishing process, two important categories that are at issue in the lawsuit.
Now, OpenAI and other defendants are firing back, accusing Apple of improperly using its brief to introduce new evidence and expert opinions, including content they say could have been presented earlier, giving the defendants no chance to respond.
From the fling:
Apple has sent with its brief response five new experts (including all new experts), with a total of 126 pages, as well as many exhibits. These declarations go far beyond the scope of Apple’s opening brief and Defendants’ objections, and in any event do not document Apple’s lack of action.
The defendant also went through new expert statements in detail, arguing that Apple was effectively trying to delay its original motion with new material after seeing the defendant’s response.
Among other things, they argued that Runge was brought in as a completely new expert to confirm the testimony that Apple had already sent, and Fayed offered new opinions that could have been previously included.
They added that Pooley relied on an investigation conducted only after Apple filed its original request, and that Roffman presented evidence they said was available to Apple before the filing, while also presenting some of Liu’s communications out of context.
Therefore, the defendants asked the court to strike the two new statements, including five of Roffman’s testimony, and to ignore other evidence and opinions that they said were presented incorrectly.
Interestingly, they ask that if the court decides to consider Roffman’s declaration and exhibits anyway, it also takes into account the new declaration that Liu filed, offering his own explanation of the messages and device activity that Apple claims as evidence against him.
You can read the new OpenAI document below. Apple’s filing from last week is available here.
