Apple v. OpenAI: how to read an injunction request the judge has not decided

On July 10, 2026, Apple sued OpenAI, io Products and two former employees in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Two days later, docket 5:26-cv-07078 contained a 41-page complaint, but no ruling establishing trade-secret misappropriation and no fully briefed injunction motion supported by evidence. The complaint requested preliminary and permanent relief in its prayer and said Apple would move “promptly” for preliminary relief.

The distinction matters because a request in a complaint, a motion and an order perform different jobs. The first says which remedy the plaintiff wants; the second must justify why a decision is needed before trial; the third is action by the judge. The transferable skill is recognizing those documents and asking, in every legal story, what actually exists on the docket and which standard remains to be satisfied.

What Apple alleged and who is involved

The original complaint, document 1, names Chang Liu and Tang Yew Tan, OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI Group PBC and io Products as defendants. It asserts four separate Defend Trade Secrets Act misappropriation claims and two alleged breaches of Apple intellectual-property agreements. Apple demands a jury trial.

The narrative is Apple’s, not a judicial finding. The company says Liu, an electrical systems engineer who left in January 2026, retained equipment, accessed internal material and downloaded documents. It alleges that Tan, a former product-design leader and later OpenAI hardware executive, used recruiting and contacts with Apple personnel to obtain information. It also attributes acquisition, possession or use of material to OpenAI and io. Every verb requires attribution until the defendants answer and the court weighs evidence.

The existence of a file or technical knowledge is not enough by itself to prevail. The litigation will have to identify specific information, show that it derived value from not being generally known, establish reasonable measures to keep it secret, and prove acquisition, disclosure or use through conduct covered by law. The parties may also dispute what belongs to an employee’s general experience and what is protected information. A complaint can describe categories; proof must particularize them without publicly revealing the secret it seeks to protect.

The remedies in the prayer

Apple lists thirteen requests at the end of the filing. Its conduct-related demands are specific. It seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against actual or threatened misappropriation; another barring possession, use or disclosure of its trade secrets and confidential information; a preliminary injunction against altering, destroying or disposing of evidence, including email, electronic documents, metadata and directories; and an order returning Apple property and ending access or use.

The remaining requests include a declaration that defendants have no right to use the information, damages for loss, recovery of alleged unjust enrichment, a reasonable royalty as an alternative, exemplary damages, interest, fees and other appropriate relief. Listing a remedy preserves the ability to seek it. It does not mean the court will grant it or that a prohibition already exists.

The complaint does not literally request cancellation of a named device launch. It alleges that io is using secrets to develop and commercialize OpenAI hardware and asks to stop that use. Whether a future order affected a product would depend on its wording, the information the judge found protectable and the work built with it. Turning that possibility into “Apple wants to block the device” would erase conditions the docket had not resolved.

Complaint, motion and order: three levels

A complaint starts the case and states claims. It may contain a prayer for preliminary relief, as this one does. A preliminary-injunction motion is a focused procedural request, normally offering argument, declarations, documents and a proposed order; the opposing party receives notice and an opportunity to respond. An order comes later and specifies the restricted conduct. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 requires notice before a preliminary injunction and requires every granted injunction to give reasons and describe the affected acts in reasonable detail.

The complaint acknowledges that transition. In footnote 14, while explaining an injunction exception in Liu’s arbitration agreement, it says Apple will promptly seek preliminary relief against him and the other defendants. As of July 12, that sentence announced a next step. It did not replace evidentiary briefing or reveal the exact scope Apple would propose, the schedule the judge would set, or the defendants’ evidence.

A temporary restraining order, or TRO, is another device. Rule 65 permits a no-notice order only when specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint show immediate, irreparable injury before the other side can be heard and counsel certifies notice efforts. A TRO issued without notice expires within no more than 14 days absent an extension or consent. Nothing in the initial public docket supported saying that emergency route had already been sought or granted.

The standard Apple would need to meet

The familiar four factors do not appear as a list in Rule 65; they come from case law. In Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the US Supreme Court said a preliminary-injunction applicant must show likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of equities and consistency with the public interest. Preliminary relief is extraordinary, not an automatic consequence of serious allegations.

Here, “likely success” would require support for the elements of a trade-secret claim. “Irreparable harm” would require an explanation of why later damages could not remedy the alleged use or spread. The equities would compare protection with harm from restraining legitimate activity; the public interest would include safeguarding secrets without converting relief into an excessive restriction on competition or employment. Evidence and tailoring matter more than the complaint’s tone.

The Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §1836, authorizes injunctions to prevent actual or threatened misappropriation but limits their reach. Relief may not prevent a person from entering an employment relationship, and conditions on employment must rest on evidence of threatened misappropriation rather than merely on what a person knows. The law also permits affirmative protective action and, in exceptional circumstances, a royalty instead of a prohibition.

That language is central to the remedy. The dispute cannot be resolved by saying a former employee “knows too much.” Apple would need to connect identifiable secrets to concrete acts and risks. Defendants could contest secrecy, acquisition, use, threat and proportionality. The judge could deny relief, grant a narrower version or impose safeguards without adopting the entire prayer.

Following the docket without turning allegations into facts

The public docket supplies the chronology, but each entry needs a type label. “Complaint” means the plaintiff’s opening account. “Motion” means a pending request. “Opposition” supplies the response. “Order” contains a decision. “Declaration” supplies testimony under responsibility, not necessarily a conclusion the court accepts. Document numbers and dates reveal whether coverage is describing the correct stage.

When a motion appears, readers can look for five things: sufficiently specific secrets, evidence of possession or use, a concrete future risk, a connection between that risk and the remedy, and the proposed order’s wording. They should then compare the opposition and mark which facts remain contested. If an article links only to another article, the path to the material the judge will examine is missing.

On July 12, what could be verified was limited but consequential: Apple had filed its complaint; it had requested several injunction remedies in the prayer; it promised later motion practice; and no decision established the truth of its accusations. That boundary protects against opposite mistakes — treating a complaint as a judgment or assuming an early request cannot materially affect product development. Reading the right document keeps both possibilities open until evidence and a judge close them.