OpenAI accuses Apple of 'sandbagging' in trade secrets lawsuit
What's the story
OpenAI has accused Apple of improperly using its reply brief to introduce new evidence and expert opinions in a trade secrets lawsuit. The iPhone maker had previously filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, Jony Ive's io Products, and two ex-employees, Chang Liu and Tang Tan, over alleged trade secret theft. Apple claims that Liu accessed confidential engineering files after leaving the company while Tan sought confidential information from Apple employees interviewing for jobs.
Legal maneuver
Apple seeks preliminary injunction against OpenAI, others
Apple has sought preliminary injunction from court, barring OpenAI and other defendants from accessing, using, disclosing or soliciting its confidential information and trade secrets.
The tech giant submitted a reply brief with five expert declarations totaling 126 pages and 13 exhibits in support of this motion last week.
These documents were authored by experts Daniel Roffman, James Pooley, Dr. Ayman Fayed, Dr. Paul Hatch and Dr. Jude Runge to bolster Apple's claims against Liu and Tan, OpenAI, and io Products.
Rebuttal
Apple accused of improperly using its reply brief
In response, OpenAI and other defendants have accused Apple of improperly using its reply brief to introduce new evidence and expert opinions.
They argue this material could have been presented earlier, denying them a fair chance to respond.
The defendants have requested the court strike two of the new declarations, including Roffman's five exhibits, and disregard other evidence/opinions they say were improperly introduced.
Evidence dispute
Defendants challenge Apple's new expert declarations
The defendants have also challenged Apple's new expert declarations, arguing that the company is trying to bolster its original motion with fresh material after seeing their response.
They claim that Runge was brought in as a completely new expert to reinforce testimony Apple had already submitted and Fayed offered opinions that could have been included earlier.
The defendants also allege Pooley relied on an investigation conducted only after Apple filed its original motion.
Additional request
Defendants request court to consider Liu's declaration
If the court decides to consider Roffman's declaration and exhibits, the defendants have requested it also take into account a new declaration Liu filed.
This document offers his own explanation of the messages and device activity that Apple cited as evidence against him.
The defendants argue this would provide a more balanced view of the case at hand.