Apple's new evidence sparks pushback from OpenAI lawyers
Defendants say Apple's 126-page reply brief introduced evidence too late in the trade secret dispute
OpenAI and its co-defendants have asked a federal court to throw out two expert declarations. Apple submitted last week, arguing the tech giant used a reply brief to smuggle in evidence it should have disclosed earlier.
Apple sued OpenAI, Jony Ive's io Products, and former employees Chang Liu and Tang Tan earlier this year, alleging the pair took confidential hardware information with them when they left Apple.
According to the company, Liu gained access to engineering documents even after he left his position. On the other hand, Tan allegedly attempted to obtain confidential information from job candidates during interviews.
In response to this lawsuit, Apple has requested a preliminary injunction that would prevent the defendants from using and/or leaking the company’s trade secrets until the case ends.
Recently, the company filed a reply brief, supported by five expert declarations of Daniel Roffman, James Pooley, Dr Ayman Fayed, Dr Paul Hatch, and Dr Jude Runge that consisted of 126 pages and 13 exhibits.
OpenAI's team argues the declarations go beyond what Apple's original motion covered, calling the material an attempt to patch a weak case after reading the defendants' opposition.
They single out Runge as an entirely new expert brought in late and say Fayed's opinions could have been filed earlier. Pooley, they claim, based his findings on an investigation started only after Apple's initial filing, while Roffman allegedly used evidence Apple already had access to and quoted Liu's messages selectively.
The defendants want the court to strike Roffman's and Runge's declarations outright, along with Roffman's five exhibits.
They've also asked that if the court keeps Roffman's material in play, it should equally weigh a new declaration from Liu himself, who has offered his account of the device activity and messages Apple cited against him.
