Intellectual property protection

Ex-employees and intellectual property protection

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

3–5 minutes

The importance of protecting your intellectual property cannot be overstated.  Various threats are posed to the confidentiality and exclusive use a company enjoys with their intellectual property.  One (1) such threat is when an employee, informed of the company’s intellectual property, ceases to be an employee of the company.  How can you protect your company’s intellectual property from this ex-employee?

Contractual protections

Contractual obligations ought to be the main mechanism through which a company protects their intellectual property from ex-employees.  The most practically necessary clauses include:

  • restraint of trade;
  • intellectual property generation; and
  • return of confidential information.

Restraint of trade

Intellectual property rights can be protected from a recalcitrant ex-employee through a restraint of trade clause in the employment contract.  In the context of employment, these clauses aim to prevent a person from undertaking activities (such as working for competitors or with current clients/customers) which would harm their former place of employment.  Maxwell P in Birdanco Nominees Pty Ltd v Money [2012] VSCA 64 held the following at [2]:

It is well established that those who carry on a business of providing professional services are entitled to impose restraints on their employees, directed at protecting the goodwill of the business following the departure of an employee.”

It is clear to see that a company’s goodwill could be substantially impacted if their confidential and exclusive intellectual property rights were disseminated or even utilised by an ex-employee in their subsequent place of employment.

To ensure a restraint of trade clause is effective and enforceable, an employer must show that at the time of the agreement:

  • there was a legitimate interest of the employer to protect its intellectual property;[1] and
  • the restraint imposed was no more than reasonably necessary to protect that interest.[2]

It follows that, to protect their intellectual property, companies should utilise restraint of trade clauses which are specifically worded and proportionally respond to the risks posed by ex-employees.  It is important that these clauses are worded to specifically protect an interest, like rights in intellectual property, because if the clause is too broad the Courts are unlikely to enforce it.[3]

Intellectual property generation

As a matter of course, employees generate new intellectual property as a result of their employment.  Without the governance of a strict contractual relationship, that intellectual property may fall into the possession of that employee.  In such case, they would be free to utilise that intellectual property when they commence employment at a new company.  Thus, it is important that a contract of employment underpins the specific relationships the company, its employees, and intellectual property.

Intellectual property generation clauses need to:

  • specifically allocate to the company ownership in respect of any new knowledge created by employees and contractors; and
  • govern existing intellectual property and its use in the course of an employee’s employment.

Such clauses should explicitly cover intellectual property rights in respect of trademark, copyright, patent and design.

Return of confidential information

Similarly to intellectual property generation clauses, a return of confidential information clause should be drafted to bar an ex-employee from retaining any and all intellectual property, except for particular patents, once their employment with the company has ceased.  In particular, such clauses should mandate that, on or before the employee’s last day of employment, the employee is to return or destruct (as instructed by the company) all intellectual property that the employee holds in relation to the company.

The above contractual clauses, utilised concurrently, will substantially protect a company’s intellectual property.

Takeaways

The primary method which employers can use to protect their intellectual property from unsanctioned use or dissemination by ex-employees is through contract.  Clauses in an employment contract restraining trade, governing intellectual property generation and requiring the return of confidential information are an employer’s strongest safeguards against recalcitrant ex-employees.

Links and further references

Cases

Amoco Australia Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor Engineering Co Pty Ltd (1973) 133 CLR 288

ASPL Pty Ltd v Rajakaruna [2019] WASC 269

Woolworths Ltd v Olson [2004] NSWCA 372

Further information about intellectual property protection

If you need advice on protecting intellectual property which an ex-employee may have access to, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:

[1] Woolworths Ltd v Olson [2004] NSWCA 372 [38].

[2] Amoco Australia Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor Engineering Co Pty Ltd(1973) 133 CLR 288.

[3] ASPL Pty Ltd v Rajakaruna [2019] WASC 269 [78].


Related insights into breach of confidence

  • What amounts to use of a trade mark outside of Australia?

    What amounts to use of a trade mark outside of Australia?

    The case of Lamont v Malishus & Ors (No 4) [2019] FCCA 3206 (Lamont v Malishus) involved an action for infringement of a registered trade mark in Australia under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TMA).  This case raised several issues, including, whether using a word as part of a domain name constituted “use” as…

    Read more …

  • Clash of jurisdictions and trade mark infringement

    Clash of jurisdictions and trade mark infringement

    The case of International Hair Cosmetics Group Pty Ltd v International Hair Cosmetics Limited [2011] FCA 339 (Case) considered whether use of Australian registered trade marks on a British website constituted “use in Australia” under section 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TMA).  It was ultimately held that, despite use of the two…

    Read more …

  • Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Modern awards and enterprise agreements set out the minimum terms and conditions of employment for most Australian workers performing different roles.  The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) provides a mechanism by which an employer and an individual employee may, by agreement, adjust the operation of certain terms in their Award to better suit theircircumstances. …

    Read more …

  • White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    Employees who use White Anting tactics to deliberately undermine management or disrupt workplace harmony may be summarily dismissed, provided the relevant legal conditions are met and a proper process is followed.  Following our 28 April 2026 article “White Anting: serious misconduct?“, this article provides practical “how to” steps for employers to lawfully dismiss employees who…

    Read more …

  • White Anting: serious misconduct?

    White Anting: serious misconduct?

    White Anting is an Australian term meaning to sabotage, undermine, or destroy an organisation, project, or person from within.  White Anting in the workplace often involves the quiet, insidious undermining of a colleague or superior through gossip, withholding information, exclusion, or spreading doubt.  White Anting  has been recognised by psychologists as a psychosocial hazard and…

    Read more …

  • Designer wins High Court case over Katy Perry trade mark dispute

    Designer wins High Court case over Katy Perry trade mark dispute

    On 11 March 2026, the High Court of Australia (High Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC [2026] HCA 5 (Taylor v Killer Queen), ending the seventeen (17) year trade mark dispute between pop star Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor. In a 3:2 majority decision,…

    Read more …

  • Full Court clarifies confidentiality of supplier and contact info

    Full Court clarifies confidentiality of supplier and contact info

    On 10 May 2023, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) delivered its judgment in the case of New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2023] FCAFC 67 (New Aim v Leung), allowing an appeal concerning alleged misuse of confidential supplier information by a former senior employee. The decision provides guidance on:…

    Read more …

  • Importance of meta data in discovery – Hamlan v Levonix

    Importance of meta data in discovery – Hamlan v Levonix

    The recent copyright case of Hamlan Homes Pty Ltd trading as Hamlan Homes and Geelong Homes v Levonix Homes Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2G 565 (Hamlan v Levonix)involved a dispute between Hamlan Homes Pty Ltd 006 313 015 (Hamlan) and Levonix Homes Pty Ltd ACN 168 777 384 (Levonix) that provides insight into preservation…

    Read more …

  • Proposed changes to copyright for orphan works

    Proposed changes to copyright for orphan works

    On 5 November 2025, the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 (Cth)(Bill) was introduced to the Federal Parliament to amend the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)(Copyright Act).  The media release to the Bill explained that it proposed two (2) reforms to the Copyright Act by establishing Australia’s first statutory “orphan works” scheme and clarifying the permitted use of…

    Read more …

Send this to a friend