Welcome to the forefront of conversational AI as we explore the fascinating world of AI chatbots in our dedicated blog series. Discover the latest advancements, applications, and strategies that propel the evolution of chatbot technology. From enhancing customer interactions to streamlining business processes, these articles delve into the innovative ways artificial intelligence is shaping the landscape of automated conversational agents. Whether you’re a business owner, developer, or simply intrigued by the future of interactive technology, join us on this journey to unravel the transformative power and endless possibilities of AI chatbots.
A federal judge has expanded Apple Inc.’s access to evidence in its trade secrets case against two former engineers and OpenAI, ordering the defendants to hand over forensic records of how one of them used artificial intelligence tools while still employed at the iPhone maker.
U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, sitting in the Northern District of California, signed the order Tuesday in Apple Inc. v. Liu, No. 5:26-cv-07078-EJD. It requires the defendants to produce records covering Chang Liu’s use of ChatGPT, Claude, Codex and OpenClaw, including material tied to what the filing describes as “personal experimentation” and to any “Apple Originated Information.”
The scope covers Liu’s Mac Mini, personal accounts and corporate devices, running from Jan. 23, 2026 to the present. OpenAI has said Liu’s final day at Apple was Jan. 22, 2026, the day before the window opens.
The ruling follows an earlier decision this month in which Davila granted only part of Apple’s bid for expedited discovery, holding that the company’s definition of “Apple Originated Information” was too broad. The two sides subsequently agreed on narrower language, which the judge adopted with modifications, clearing the way for the additional requests to be granted.
Note: Dates and deadlines as set out in the Oct. 27, 2026 order.
Liu and co-defendant Tang Tan must also catalog every account, device, storage location and application used to handle Apple information covered by the order. The order specifically names the messaging services LINE, Signal, Telegram and Kik. Where such material has since vanished from a device or account, both men are required to describe what it contained, how long it remained and how it was accessed, as well as when any deletion happened, who carried it out and why.
Davila additionally cleared Apple to depose OpenAI and io Products under Rule 30(b)(6) on three narrow subjects. The first concerns any work Liu, Tan and Yu-Ting “Alyssa” Peng performed at OpenAI that touched Apple information on power management, batteries or metal finishing. The second covers interviews OpenAI conducted with or through the three, and any Apple information that surfaced in them. The third addresses what OpenAI did or failed to do to keep that information from being used.
Apple did not get everything it sought. The judge declined to order testimony on OpenAI’s own devices and accounts, its internal investigations or any deletions on the company’s part, leaving those questions to ordinary merits discovery. Two further proposed testimony topics were rejected as “too broad at this stage and better suited for merits discovery.”
Apple sued on July 10, accusing Liu, Tan, OpenAI and io Products of taking confidential hardware information to speed OpenAI’s development of consumer devices. According to the complaint, more than 400 former Apple employees now work at OpenAI, and the company allegedly used Apple’s internal code names to extract confidential details from job candidates. OpenAI has asked the court to dismiss the case, calling it a “baseless and pretextual lawsuit,” and indicated this month that it may file counterclaims.
One account in the filing describes an employee who left Apple for six months at OpenAI and then returned, allegedly moving more than 100 confidential files about an unreleased OpenAI device to personal accounts. Apple said it found no evidence supporting that claim.
The order intensifies pressure on OpenAI’s hardware ambitions, which depend heavily on engineering talent recruited from Apple. For Apple, the forensic records could establish whether proprietary designs migrated into AI-assisted workflows, a question with implications well beyond this dispute as device makers weigh how employee use of generative tools should be monitored and documented.
The news and data on this website are for reference only and do not constitute investment advice or an offer to buy or sell. Information is sourced from exchanges and public sources, and may be delayed, interrupted, or updated. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee timeliness, correctness, or completeness. Content may include external links for which we are not responsible. By using this site, you agree that we and our partners are not liable for any losses. Investment carries full responsibility; please carefully assess risks and consult professionals. If there are errors in the content, please contact us for correction.
