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

  • Federal Gov rules out copyright text and data mining exception for AI

    Federal Gov rules out copyright text and data mining exception for AI

    On 26 October 2025, the Attorney-General, Hon Michelle Rowland MP, published a media release reiterating that the current Federal Government will not introduce a text and data mining (TDM) exception to copyright infringement in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act).  The Attorney-General’s Department will instead engage in further consultations with members of the Copyright…

    Read more …

  • Malcolm Burrows on ABC’s “Legal Eagles” segment – copyright law and the Anthropic case

    Malcolm Burrows on ABC’s “Legal Eagles” segment – copyright law and the Anthropic case

    On 10 September 2025, Malcolm Burrows appeared live on Katherine Feeney’s ABC Radio program, “Legal Eagles” as the Technology and Intellectual Property Lawyer to discuss legal issues associated with copyright subsisting in artificial intelligence (AI) training data.

    Read more …

  • Canva – who owns the artwork created by users?

    Canva – who owns the artwork created by users?

    The general rule about ownership of copyright in a literary or artistic work is that copyright vests in the ‘original author’, as per section 35(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act).  From there, ownership depends on whether or not the original author is doing the work within the scope of their employment, in…

    Read more …

  • Understanding contributory liability in patent infringement

    Understanding contributory liability in patent infringement

    In Australia, the Patent Act 1990 (Cth) provides protection for inventors by preventing others from using, making, or selling patented inventions without permission.  The Act also extends liability to parties that are not directly infringing patents but may contribute to or enable patent infringement by supplying a product.

    Read more …

  • Cross-border licensing – Maxim Media Inc. v Nuclear Enterprises

    Cross-border licensing – Maxim Media Inc. v Nuclear Enterprises

    The Federal Court decision in Maxim Media Inc. v Nuclear Enterprises Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1443 involved an interlocutory application seeking injunctive relief by Maxim Media Inc. and Maxim Inc. (together, Maxim) (Applicants) for alleged breaches of sections 18 and 29 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), passing off and infringement of a…

    Read more …

  • Misuse of confidential information within source code

    Misuse of confidential information within source code

    In Australia, computer code can amount to confidential information as well as being subject to copyright protection.  In some cases the two things overlap as was the case in decision of the Court in Optus Networks Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2010) 265 ALR 281; [2010] FCAFC 21.

    Read more …

  • IP Australia follows Madrid Goods and Services list

    IP Australia follows Madrid Goods and Services list

    From 26 March 2024, IP Australia has implemented the internationally recognised Madrid Goods and Services list (Madrid List), replacing the AU Goods and Services Picklist.[1]  The adoption of the Madrid List comes as Intellectual Property Australia (IP Australia) seeks to align the Australian classification standards with the other intellectual property offices around the world.

    Read more …

  • The “right to disconnect” from modern workplaces

    The “right to disconnect” from modern workplaces

    The right to disconnect, as contained in Part 8 of the  Fair Work Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill (Bill), gives employees the right to refuse contact from their employers (or related parties) outside of their working hours, unless the refusal is unreasonable.  The changes in Part 8 amend various sections of the Fair Work…

    Read more …

  • Federal Court guidelines for e-discovery and metadata

    Federal Court guidelines for e-discovery and metadata

    Electronic discovery in the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) is nothing new.  From July 2014, the FCA began implementing the Court’s electronic court file (ECF) across its Australian registries.  This enabled the Court to embrace the use of technology in proceedings, including the use of electronic discovery, eLodgement, eTrials, eCourtroom, and video conferences.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend