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

  • Changes to copyright protection durations

    Changes to copyright protection durations

    The Australian Government passed a major amendment to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) which will have a significant impact on copyright materials. Find out what the changes are and how they may affect you by reading this article.

    Read more …

  • Patent revocation due to lack of novelty

    Patent revocation due to lack of novelty

    One of the often cited requirements for a patent to be granted, is that the invention as claimed must be ‘novel’ in light of the information of the day (referred to as the prior art and the common general knowledge) (section 18(1)(b)(i) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act)).  Put simply, if its been…

    Read more …

  • Patents and the threshold for registration

    Patents and the threshold for registration

    Learn about the different types of patents available in Australia, their requirements for patentability, and how to protect your invention with this article. Discover what can and cannot be patented, and the legal implications of obtaining a patent. Get the facts you need to know about patents in Australia.

    Read more …

  • Understanding patent revocation

    Understanding patent revocation

    Engaging in transfers of intellectual property? Beware of transferring goodwill too. The case of Favotto Family Restaurants Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2020] NSWSC 120 highlights the concept of goodwill and its three (3) aspects, as well as how it affects the ability to generate earnings from identifiable assets.

    Read more …

  • What’s an unfair preference claim?

    What’s an unfair preference claim?

    Understand the implications of unsecured debts, insolvent transactions, and unfair preference claims in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Discover the defences available to protect against unfair preference claims and other related legal matters.

    Read more …

  • De-encryption laws: compelling tech giants to cooperate with law enforcement

    De-encryption laws: compelling tech giants to cooperate with law enforcement

    The Australian Government is introducing encryption-related legislation that could have significant implications. Get the full scoop on what this Bill could mean for companies and citizens before it is officially announced.

    Read more …

  • Interlocutory injunctions in patent dispute cases

    Interlocutory injunctions in patent dispute cases

    Australian Intelligence Community (AIC) Commissioner Falk determined in Uber investigation how the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) will assess if entities have an Australian Link to be legally bound by the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

    Read more …

  • Contesting patent ownership between joint inventors

    Contesting patent ownership between joint inventors

    This article provides an overview of the conditions for patent grant, joint inventorship tests, and standard of proof for disputes in relation to contested patent ownership in Australia.

    Read more …

  • Is exporting a product a trade mark infringement?

    The Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) provides protection to Australian trade mark owners, but what happens when their mark is used overseas? Learn more about the protection the Trade Marks Act provides, and the remedies for infringement, by clicking through to the full article.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend