OpenAI and the other defendants in Apple’s trade secret misappropriation lawsuit made a new filing, asking the court to strike two expert declarations and disregard other evidence Apple recently submitted. Here are the details.
A bit of context
As frequent 9to5Mac readers probably know, Apple recently filed a trade secret theft lawsuit against OpenAI, Jony Ive’s io Products, and two former employees: Chang Liu and Tang Tan.
In a nutshell, Apple is accusing its former employees of taking or accessing confidential hardware information after leaving the company and using it to benefit OpenAI’s consumer hardware efforts.
Apple has 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 has asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction barring OpenAI and the other defendants from accessing, using, disclosing, or soliciting Apple’s confidential information and trade secrets.
According to Apple, the injunction would prevent its trade secrets from becoming further embedded in OpenAI’s hardware development while the case plays out.
Apple files new evidence, OpenAI shoots back
As part of the legal back-and-forth over its motion for this preliminary injunction, Apple last week filed a reply brief supported by five expert declarations totaling 126 pages, along with 13 exhibits. The experts were Daniel Roffman, James Pooley, Dr. Ayman Fayed, Dr. Paul Hatch, and Dr. Jude Runge.
In these documents, Apple argued that OpenAI’s opposition failed to undermine its trade secret claims, and pointed to additional evidence that it says supports its allegations against Liu, Tan, OpenAI, and io Products.
The expert declarations, meanwhile, addressed and further detailed issues such as Apple’s security practices, forensic evidence from Liu’s devices, the value of its power-management trade secrets, and the secrecy of its metal-finishing processes, two key categories at issue in the lawsuit.
Now, OpenAI and the other defendants are shooting back, accusing Apple of improperly using its reply brief to introduce new evidence and expert opinions, including material they say could have been presented earlier, leaving the defendants without a fair opportunity to respond.
From the fling:
Apple submitted with its reply brief five new expert declarations (including one entirely new expert), totaling 126 pages, as well as numerous new exhibits. These declarations go far outside the scope of Apple’s opening brief and Defendants’ opposition, and in any event do not save Apple’s deficient motion.
The defendants also go through the new expert declarations in detail, arguing that Apple is effectively trying to shore up its original motion with new material after seeing the defendants’ response.
Among other things, they argue that Runge was brought in as an entirely new expert to reinforce testimony Apple had already submitted, and that Fayed offered new opinions that could have been included earlier.
They add that Pooley relied on an investigation conducted only after Apple filed its original motion, and that Roffman introduced evidence they say was available to Apple before that filing, while also presenting some of Liu’s communications out of context.
As a result, the defendants are asking the court to strike two of the new declarations, including Roffman’s five exhibits, and disregard other evidence and opinions that they say were improperly introduced.
Interestingly, they ask that if the court decides to consider Roffman’s declaration and exhibits anyway, it also take into account a new declaration Liu filed, offering his own explanation of the messages and device activity that Apple cited as evidence against him.
You can read OpenAI’s new filing below. Apple’s filing from last week is available here.
Worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.