Apple asks court for preliminary injunction to block OpenAI and two former employees in trade-secrets dispute

Apple has asked a U.S. judge to issue a preliminary injunction in its trade-secrets lawsuit connected to artificial intelligence, arguing that it faces “irreparable harm” if two former employees and OpenAI are not barred from accessing, using, or disclosing alleged confidential information while the case proceeds.

According to a report carried by Yahoo Finance, the company is seeking a court order tailored to prevent further use or exposure of the information Apple claims is protected. A preliminary injunction is an early, temporary remedy intended to limit potential damage before the court reaches a final decision on the underlying claims.

The filing referenced in the report also frames the dispute in terms of harm that cannot be easily repaired through money alone, a central rationale companies commonly cite when they argue for irreparable harm in injunction requests. Apple’s request, as described in the coverage, is positioned as a way to preserve the status quo during litigation.

The dispute centers on Apple’s contention that confidential information was developed and shared in specific circumstances, and that subsequent access and use by parties it names would violate trade-secrets protections. Apple’s request for restrictions on access and disclosure is designed to prevent a continued flow of potentially sensitive material while the legal questions are being litigated.

OpenAI is not the only party named in the injunction request, the report indicates. The company’s request targets two former employees in addition to OpenAI, suggesting Apple’s theory involves both prior employment relationships and later conduct connected to the AI company.

Outside of the immediate courtroom fight, the case highlights how trade-secrets claims have become a prominent legal battleground as technology companies compete to build and commercialize AI systems. When allegations involve confidential data, product designs, or internal research methods, companies often seek injunctions because the operational impact can be difficult to contain after the fact.

What Apple does not disclose in the coverage cited by the report is also notable. The report does not provide the specific details of what information Apple says was misused, what systems or tools are implicated, or what exact language the proposed injunction would require the parties to follow. Those details would typically appear in court filings, which are not included in the brief description of the case.

For market watchers, the next step is likely to be how the court evaluates the standards for a preliminary injunction, including the likelihood Apple will prevail on its trade-secrets claims and whether the harm Apple alleges is truly irreparable. A ruling could quickly shape how the parties handle access to relevant materials and could also influence broader discussions about AI talent mobility and data protections.