Apple’s trade-secret lawsuit against OpenAI names two former employees and Jony Ive’s startup but scrupulously avoids mentioning the former Apple design chief by name.
This isn’t a legal oversight. It comes down to a complicated mix of factors, including Ive’s closeness with Laurene Powell Jobs and the lousy optics of Apple targeting its most famous designer.
Jony Ive’s absence from the OpenAI lawsuit starts with what he does
Apple filed its complaint last week in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The almost 40-page filing accuses OpenAI’s chief hardware officer (and former Apple VP of design) Tang Tan, and former Apple engineer Chang Liu, of stealing trade secrets.
Apple also named OpenAI itself and io Products, the startup Ive co-founded a few years ago (which OpenAI acquired for nearly $6.5 billion in 2025). But Ive himself doesn’t appear in the lawsuit. Apple lawyers only refer to “former Apple leaders,” a phrase that includes Ive without naming him.
The most basic explanation for the omission is that Apple thinks Ive has very little to do with the alleged misconduct, Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman wrote in the Sunday edition of his Power On newsletter.
Ive is the face of OpenAI’s hardware push, working through his design firm LoveFrom. But doesn’t run recruiting or handle day-to-day operations at the AI company. Tan, OpenAI’s chief hardware officer, does.
The lawsuit alleges that candidates were asked to bring Apple hardware to interviews and coached on security workarounds. But these allegations center on Tan, not Ive.
The Laurene Powell Jobs connection
The second reason Apple decided to leave Ive out of the complaint appears much more personal. Gurman says Jony Ive and Laurene Powell Jobs, the philanthropist and widow of Steve Jobs, remain very close friends. Powell has invested in io Products and remains a supporter of LoveFrom.
She also carries some weight inside Apple. At this year’s Worldwide Developers Conference, Powell Jobs was spotted in the front row alongside Apple CEO Tim Cook and hardware chief John Ternus.
With Ternus set to succeed Cook as CEO, Powell’s seat next to both men “provided a visible display of support for both Cook and Ternus — Apple’s present and future — and reflected the close relationship she continues to maintain with the company,” Gurman wrote.
Powell Jobs isn’t on Apple’s board. Nor is she among the company’s largest shareholders. Still, she’s a Silicon Valley insider, and the name “Jobs” maintains massive influence in Cupertino. Gurman says Apple weighed the cost of straining that relationship when considering naming Ive in the lawsuit.
Optics matter: Why Apple doesn’t want Jony Ive to testify in OpenAI case
Then there’s the optics of the situation. Ive left Apple in 2019, but worked as a paid consultant until 2022. During that stretch, several members of the Apple design team he built joined him at LoveFrom. In fact, Apple’s lawsuit says more than 400 former Apple employees now work for OpenAI, either directly or through io Products.
That mass defection of employees might anger Apple management, but it’s also a bad look for the company.
“The truth is that Ive became disillusioned with Apple after Jobs’ death,” Gurman wrote. “He saw Cook placing greater emphasis on operational efficiency, manufacturing and cost discipline — with design no longer occupying the central role it once held.”
Apple doesn’t want Ive to take the stand and reveal his true feelings about the decline of design at the company he so famously worked for.
Why Tang Tan is the main target
Also, Tang Tan isn’t a household name, but Jony Ive definitely is. In fact, Ive’s design fingerprints are still visible on every product that Apple sells. Naming him in the lawsuit would have risked generating sympathy for Ive. It also might have invited criticism that Cupertino was seeking to settle old scores rather than protect trade secrets.
The Financial Times reported a note of caution from legal experts on this topic. While Apple didn’t name Ive as a defendant, he could still be pulled into the case once discovery starts.
An intellectual property law professor told the publication that Ive and other io Products co-founders might plausibly be deposed because they likely have information relevant to Apple’s claims.
Apple clearly wants this lawsuit to focus on the conduct of Tan and OpenAI, not Ive’s legacy. Whether it stays that way is no longer Apple’s call.
