Apple sues ex-employee, Oppo over Watch trade secrets theft

Apple has filed a lawsuit against Dr. Chen Shi, a former Apple Watch team member, alleging he conspired to steal trade secrets before joining Oppo.

Court documents say Shi attended dozens of meetings with Apple Watch staff and downloaded 63 protected documents onto a USB drive before leaving.

Apple alleges Shi messaged Oppo, saying he was collecting as much information as possible before his new role.

He also searched for ways to erase activity and check if files were accessed on his Apple-issued MacBook.

The company claims he had access to highly confidential health sensor technology, roadmaps, and ECG sensor development plans.

Apple said messages on Shi’s work phone indicated Oppo encouraged and approved his plan to collect proprietary information.

Shi now leads a sensing technology team at Oppo, which did not respond to The Verge’s request for comment.

Separately, Oppo said in a statement to Tech in Asia that the company “found no evidence establishing any connection” between Shi and such allegations.

“Oppo respects the trade secrets of all companies, including Apple, and Oppo has not misappropriated Apple’s trade secrets,” the company said.

“Oppo will actively cooperate with the legal process, and we are confident that fair judicial proceedings will clarify the facts,” it added.

🔗 Source: The Verge

🧠 Food for thought

1️⃣ Departing employees remain the primary vector for corporate espionage

Apple’s case against Dr. Chen Shi fits a well-documented pattern where former employees serve as conduits for trade secret theft between competing technology companies.

The Micron case demonstrates this same methodology at scale, where former employees downloaded nearly 1,000 files containing eight different trade secrets before joining Chinese competitors UMC and Fujian Jinhua1.

Similarly, Kolon Industries systematically targeted current and former DuPont employees to obtain confidential Kevlar manufacturing processes, ultimately resulting in a $919.9 million judgment against the company2.