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

  • Government’s response to Productivity Commission’s report on intellectual property

    Government’s response to Productivity Commission’s report on intellectual property

    The Australian Government is taking steps to shape the future of intellectual property rights. Find out what changes are being proposed and how they could affect you.

    Read more …

  • Preventing ex-employees from using your client list

    Preventing ex-employees from using your client list

    This article examines a Federal Court of Australia decision to grant an interlocutory injunction against a former employee. Learn how the Court reached its decision, what businesses can take away from the case, and find out how to protect your business from similar breaches.

    Read more …

  • What if neither party in proceedings takes a step?

    What if neither party in proceedings takes a step?

    The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) outline considerations and rules for a period of inactivity when continuing legal proceedings in the Queensland Courts. Learn more about what to consider when continuing proceedings.

    Read more …

  • What is the Meaning of Personal Information

    What is the Meaning of Personal Information

    Court discussed meaning of “personal info” and when identity can be ascertained. Didn’t define when metadata is personal info, but determined Section 6(1) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) was substantial in making determination.

    Read more …

  • Proposed changes to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)

    Proposed changes to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)

    The Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017 (Bill) modernises copyright laws and provides greater access to culturally significant materials. Learn more about how this bill could affect the education, libraries and archives sectors, and how it could provide improved access to copyright material for persons with a disability.

    Read more …

  • Groundless copyright infringement threats

    Groundless copyright infringement threats

    This article explores the legal implications of copyright threats, offering guidance on how to protect your intellectual property, and what to do when facing an infringement. Discover valuable insight into the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and how to obtain relief.

    Read more …

  • Contracting with Minors – is it even possible?

    Contracting with Minors – is it even possible?

    In the innovation economy it is becoming more prevalent for individuals aged less than eighteen (18) years (Minors) to seek to build enterprises.  From time to time we are asked to consider whether a client can contract with a Minor. The law in Australia[1] and Queensland[2] states that a Minor is someone who has yet…

    Read more …

  • What is a trade secret – Australian law?

    What is a trade secret – Australian law?

    Trade secrets are essential for business success. Learn about their characteristics, how to protect them, and what is not a trade secret. Get the key takeaways for businesses to maintain a competitive advantage.

    Read more …

  • Baseless threats of trade mark infringement

    Businesses must be aware of the legal considerations when making allegations of trade mark infringement. Learn more about the Pacific Ale Case and the two possible defences, Section 129(4) and (5) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), to protect your brand and avoid potential legal ramifications.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend