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 affecting unfair dismissal and minimum wage

    Changes affecting unfair dismissal and minimum wage

    Employers should be aware of three changes to employment law that came into effect on 1 July 2016, which have a significant impact on employee rights, including the unfair dismissal high income threshold, maximum compensation for claims, and minimum wage.

    Read more …

  • Enforcing confidentiality agreement terms

    Enforcing confidentiality agreement terms

    Learn how to protect confidential information and the legal remedies available if a breach occurs. Find out what elements must be established for a successful claim.

    Read more …

  • What exactly is a “Confidentiality Agreement”?

    What exactly is a “Confidentiality Agreement”?

    This article explores the importance of Confidentiality Agreements (NDAs) and what must be established in order to protect confidential information. Learn what elements and expectations are typically found in such agreements.

    Read more …

  • Meeting the evidentiary burden for a search order

    Meeting the evidentiary burden for a search order

    An Anton Piller Order is usually made without the presence of the respondent (ex parte) and consequently the Courts require the satisfaction of a high evidential threshold before granting orders of this nature.  As stated in George Rofail v Landmark Recruitment Pty Ltd and Others [2004] NSWIRComm 260 (7 September 2004), they are usually made…

    Read more …

  • Terminating a contract with no set end date

    Terminating a contract with no set end date

    In practice, we come across commercial agreements of varying types (Contracts) that, for whatever reason, don’t provide for a term or an end date (Expiry Date).   There may have been reasons for this at the time that can no longer be recalled.   It raises a number of issues, particularly where the subject matter of the…

    Read more …

  • Is your confidential information truly protected?

    Is your confidential information truly protected?

    This article examines the complex nuances around protecting confidential information, essential for commercial transactions. It looks at the quality of confidence, circumstances implying an obligation of confidence, and various Court cases to determine the confidentiality of information.

    Read more …

  • The risks of ‘manufactured’ business testimonials: lessons from the ACCC

    The risks of ‘manufactured’ business testimonials: lessons from the ACCC

    The Federal Court has imposed hefty fines and corrective measures on A Whistle and Co Pty Ltd, a franchisor found guilty of breaching the Australian Consumer Law by publishing fake customer testimonials. This serves as a warning to businesses to engage in genuine and legitimate marketing activities, not deceptive practices.

    Read more …

  • Letting go of employees threatening to go to the media

    Letting go of employees threatening to go to the media

    When employees leak confidential information or threaten to go to the media, employers can face serious consequences. Find out what the Fair Work Commission says about this issue and what options employers have to protect themselves.

    Read more …

  • Can employers dismiss employees for failing to follow instructions?

    Can employers dismiss employees for failing to follow instructions?

    When an employee fails to follow their employer’s instructions, the consequences can be serious. Learn about the steps employers must take before termination, and how to protect against unfair dismissal claims.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend