Apple accuses OpenAI of improperly adding new arguments to trade secrets case

OpenAI accused Apple of improperly adding new evidence to its trade secrets case, but Apple has responded by accusing OpenAI of exceeding the permitted scope in its counterclaim. The dispute centers around a request for a preliminary injunction, with Apple seeking to prevent sensitive information from being embedded in OpenAI's hardware development during the legal proceedings.

In their reply brief, Apple presented five expert declarations, prompting OpenAI and other defendants to argue that Apple had introduced new evidence and submit several documents countering Apple's claims. However, Apple has now responded to these objections, stating that defendants went beyond simply objecting to new evidence, introducing new arguments and testimony: Rule 7-3(d)(1) permits objecting to new evidence, but not including further argument on the motion.

Apple contends that defendants violated this restriction by relitigating the merits of Apple's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, disputing whether Dr. Runge's analysis adequately responds to "contrary evidence," and explaining away Liu's use of confidential Apple files. Furthermore, Apple objects to a new declaration from Liu, calling it "the most egregious overreach" in the defendants' filing, arguing that it violates the prohibition against "further argument on the motion."

Apple maintains that defendants' new arguments and evidence constitute a "sur-reply" rather than a proper objection, and requests the court to deny their request to strike any of Apple's reply evidence, and to consider the full record, including both Apple's reply and the new arguments and evidence presented by defendants. The preliminary injunction motion is set to be heard on October 14.