Apple asks court for preliminary injunction against OpenAI amid trade-secrets case

Apple has turned to the courts again in its dispute with OpenAI, asking a US judge for a preliminary injunction that would bar ChatGPT maker OpenAI and two additional defendants from continuing alleged conduct while the case proceeds. The request, described in a market report, is aimed at immediate relief rather than a final ruling on the merits.

The filing comes as Apple’s trade-secrets lawsuit advances. In trade-secrets litigation, a court may grant preliminary injunctions to prevent alleged misuse of confidential information from causing further harm before a full decision is issued, but the standard typically requires showing a likelihood of success and the risk of irreparable damage.

The market report characterizes the injunction request as targeting OpenAI and two form defendants, without detailing in the brief account what specific systems, datasets, or methods Apple says were taken or used improperly. Apple, for its part, did not provide additional context in the information described in the market recap.

For OpenAI, the dispute sits within a broader pattern of heightened legal scrutiny around generative AI development, including questions about how models are trained, what confidential inputs may have been used, and what obligations companies have when employees move between organizations. Apple’s decision to seek court-ordered limits suggests it believes the alleged harm cannot be addressed adequately by waiting for a final judgment.

Apple’s public communications on its technology and product strategy typically emphasize privacy, on-device security, and controlled access to user data and system capabilities. While those themes are separate from the legal claims in the reported case, they help explain why a company could argue that alleged trade-secret exposure poses risks that are hard to quantify after the fact.

The company also operates at the intersection of AI and consumer devices, where software tooling, user experiences, and internal engineering practices can be tightly controlled. If Apple’s complaint centers on proprietary know-how, a preliminary injunction request indicates it is seeking to halt ongoing conduct it views as harmful while the legal process runs its course.

What remains unclear from the available market recap is the scope of the proposed injunction, including what activities would be prohibited and whether Apple is seeking limits on model training, access to specific technologies, or other operational restrictions. The report does not provide the exact language of the requested order, deadlines for responses, or dates for upcoming court hearings.

Next, attention will likely focus on whether the judge grants any portion of the injunction request and on the defendants’ response. Legal proceedings in preliminary stages can also hinge on evidence submitted under seal, meaning the public record may show little detail even as the dispute moves quickly through procedural steps.