Apple has accused OpenAI and two former employees — Chang Liu and Tang Tan, along with io Products, of violating federal court rules in a trade secrets lawsuit that could shape how tech firms handle confidential hardware information. At stake is Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction: a court order that would temporarily block OpenAI from using or embedding Apple’s proprietary hardware data while the case moves forward. Apple argues such a pause is necessary to prevent irreversible harm. Specifically, that its trade secrets become permanently baked into OpenAI’s hardware development efforts before the court reaches a final decision. The hearing on that motion is set for Tuesday, October 14. 9to5Mac reports Apple filed a reply brief supporting the injunction request, backed by five expert declarations. In response, the defendants objected, claiming Apple had improperly introduced new evidence in that reply. But Apple says the objection itself broke the rules. According to Apple’s filing, the defendants didn’t limit themselves to challenging evidence. They launched fresh arguments about the credibility of Apple’s experts, disputed whether certain technical information qualifies as confidential, and even contested interpretations of internal Apple communications. Apple cites one example: the defendants’ claim that Dr. Runge lacks a ‘basis to offer any analysis’ and fails to adequately respond to ‘contrary evidence’. Apple calls that kind of commentary ‘not an objection to evidence’. It’s argument on the merits of the motion, which Rule 7-3(d)(1) explicitly forbids in this procedural context. Worse, Apple says, is a new eight-paragraph declaration from Liu, submitted alongside the objection. In which he attempts to justify wiping his iMac before returning it to Apple, reinterpret text messages exchanged with an Apple supplier, and explain his use of a confidential Apple computer file. Apple labels that declaration ‘the most egregious overreach’, noting it violates both the ban on new argument and the five-page limit for objections. The entire filing runs nine pages. Apple adds that the defendants tried to condition their submission on the court also accepting Apple’s contested evidence, a tactic Apple calls inconsistent with court procedure. Because the defendants have now introduced new arguments and testimony of their own, Apple asks the court not to strike its reply evidence. Instead, Apple urges the court to consider the full record. Including the defendants’ unauthorised material, when deciding the injunction motion.