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 exactly are moral rights?

    What exactly are moral rights?

    This article provides an overview of moral rights in Australia, including the three moral rights available to authors and performers, the works protected by them, their retrospective application, when they may be infringed, and the case of Meskenas v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2006] FMCA 1136 (Meskenas). Helping readers understand the implications of moral rights…

    Read more …

  • How much copying leads to copyright infringement?

    How much copying leads to copyright infringement?

    This article outlines the definition of Literary Works, the subsistence of copyright in such works, and the test for infringement of copyright under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). It also provides an overview of the four major characteristics to consider when determining if copying is substantial.

    Read more …

  • Cost awards in unfair dismissal cases – part 2

    Cost awards in unfair dismissal cases – part 2

    The case of Clair Petersen v Kizuri Capital Pty Ltd, Maycorp Pty Ltd and Cricklewood Capital Pty Ltd T/A Allpet Products [2021] FWC 526 highlights the importance of parties engaging meaningfully and reasonably throughout the unfair dismissal process. A costs order was made against an employer who ignored settlement offers, demonstrating that such behaviour can…

    Read more …

  • What is the proposed “patent box” tax incentive?

    What is the proposed “patent box” tax incentive?

    The Federal Government has announced a ‘patent box’ tax regime to boost Australian biotech and medtech innovators with a $206 million corporate tax cut. Learn more about the scope, qualifications and prerequisites for patenting an invention.

    Read more …

  • Accessory liability and copyright infringement

    Accessory liability and copyright infringement

    Manufacturers and service providers can be held liable for copyright infringement, but when? This article examines the legal implications of the Sea Shepherd (UK) v Fish & Fish Ltd [2015] UKSC 10 case and accessory liability.

    Read more …

  • Changes for casual employment – employer’s responsibilites

    Changes for casual employment – employer’s responsibilites

    The Fair Work Amendment Act 2021 (Cth) has changed the landscape of employment for casual employees. Employers need to be aware of the amended definition of casual employees, the “casual conversion” option and the requirement to provide a Casual Employment Information Statement (CEIS).

    Read more …

  • Are fiduciary duties owed by former company directors?

    Are fiduciary duties owed by former company directors?

    A former director’s duties and responsibilities to their previous company may not end with their resignation. Find out how the Advanced Fuels Technology Pty Ltd v Blythe & Ors [2018] VSC 286 case explored this concept and what the Court had to say.

    Read more …

  • Palmer breaches copyright – liable for $1.5m AUD in damages

    Palmer breaches copyright – liable for $1.5m AUD in damages

    Court found Respondent infringed copyright of Daniel “Dee” Snider’s works, awarding $1.5M for flagrant, contumelious infringements. It was found as not fair and not satirical/parodical.

    Read more …

  • Cost awards in unfair dismissal cases – part 1

    Cost awards in unfair dismissal cases – part 1

    Employers in Australia must be aware of potential costs involved when defending an unfair dismissal claim at the Fair Work Commission. Despite success, employers rarely get the option to recover costs from the complainant employee.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend