Confidential information

Know-how vs confidential information

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

In an article entitled “is your confidential information really confidential” we discussed what is and isn’t confidential information and how this term is nearly always misused.  This article discusses a category of confidential information known as “know-how” and what rights employers have over it.

So what precisely is know-how?

Know-how is information that is confidential “but which once learned necessarily remains in the servant’s head and becomes a part of his own skill and knowledge applied in the court of his master’s business”.[1]  The Courts have recognised that know-how forms part of an employee’s acquired or inherent state of knowledge.  While employers are entitled to protect their confidential information from being used by former employees to their detriment, this interest must be balanced against the:

prima facie right of any person to use and exploit for the purpose of earning his living all the skill, experience and knowledge which he has at his disposal, including skill, expertise and knowledge which he has acquired in the course of previous periods of employment.[2]

In other words, know-how is the accumulated knowledge of how to do something, and is usually acquired through work experience.  Know-how travels with an employee, and if an organisation wishes to restrain the use of know-how, the issue needs careful and specific legal consideration.

The know-how versus confidential information dichotomy

In an employer-employee context, there is a distinction between ‘know-how’ and confidential information.  In determining this distinction, the court considers two (2) competing public policy interests:

  • that employees should not be restricted in using skill, experience and know-how acquired in the service of their former employer in legitimate competition; in contrast to
  • the need for the law to protect the confidentiality and misuse of trade secrets.[3]

In Wright v Gasweld Pty Ltd, Kirby P approved the following classification for information obtained from being employed:

  • information that because of its triviality or public availability cannot be regarded as confidential;
  • information the employee must treat as confidential until the termination of their employment, but which once learned, remains in the employee’s head and becomes part of their skill and knowledge (Know How); and
  • specific trade secrets which cannot lawfully be used other than for the employer’s benefit (Trade Secrets).[4]

If analysed this way, information can be protected in the second and third categories, although in the second, it can only be protected during the course of employment.

See our article entitled “What is a trade secret” for further discussion.

Can an employer take action if an employee misuses their know-how?

This will of course depend on the point in time when this occurs and whether or not the particular information concerned is capable of being protected as confidential information.

A claim could potentially be available at common law for breach of confidence.  However, before the Court can intervene, an employer will need to show they took reasonable steps to identify and subsequently keep the information contained or confidential.

Takeaways

Businesses that are concerned about protecting their confidential information need to clearly identify the different classes of knowledge which can be protected and take positive steps to protect it.   Broad contractual terms to the effect that ‘everything is confidential’ are unlikely to be enforceable.

Links and further references

Cases

Ansell Rubber Co Pty Ltd  v  Allied Rubber Industries Pty Ltd  [1967] VicRp 7

Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch 117

Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] 1 AC 688

Mense  and Ampere Electric Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd v  Milenkovic  [1973] VicRp 78

Wright v Gasweld Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 317

Decisions on confidential information

Hill & Smith Holdings PLC v Safe Barriers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 8 (8 January 2020)

Further information about confidential information

If you need advice on protecting the confidential information and defining the boundary with know-how, contact me for an obligation free and confidential discussion:

[1] Wright v Gasweld Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 317 at [97].

[2] Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch 117 at [128].

[3] Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] 1 AC 688 at [714].

[4] Wright v Gasweld Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 317 at [339].


Related insights about confidential information

  • Patentability of computer-implemented inventions

    Patentability of computer-implemented inventions

    The question of patentability of so called “computer-implemented” inventions has been the subject of legal debate in Australia for a number of years.  The September 2018 of the Full Court of the Federal Court in  Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v Infotrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161 was long anticipated by intellectual property lawyers and patent…

    Read more …

  • Phasing out the innovation patent system

    Phasing out the innovation patent system

    The Senate has recommended a bill that could have a major impact on small and medium-sized businesses. Find out what changes are proposed and what it could mean for your intellectual property.

    Read more …

  • Software litigation – how much evidence is sufficient?

    Software litigation – how much evidence is sufficient?

    The Court was asked to decide if the applicant had enough info to begin proceedings for copyright infringement and breach of confidence in Qudos Mutual Ltd v Infosys Ltd [2019] FCA 702. Qudos was not satisfied with what they had, so the Court ordered the production of further documents and source code.

    Read more …

  • Has my software been copied? – legal test explained

    Has my software been copied? – legal test explained

    This article examines the legal test for a “substantial reproduction” of computer code, as established by the High Court in Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 49 and further discussed in subsequent cases. The Court will consider the essential features of the work to determine if there has been a substantial…

    Read more …

  • The doctrine of repudiation – when deals go bad

    The doctrine of repudiation – when deals go bad

    Contracting in business can be tricky, but the doctrine of repudiation may provide a way to end a contract and seek compensation. Learn more about this complex topic.

    Read more …

  • Not so swole – Trade marks removed for non-use

    The Federal Court examined the evidence needed to prove intention to use a trade mark in good faith. Find out what happened when an application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal was refused.

    Read more …

  • Confusing marks – Sensis v Senses

    Sensis Pty Ltd v Senses Direct Mail and Fulfillment Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 719: Court ruled SENSES marks deceptively similar to SENSIS marks, highlighting importance of engaging intellectual property lawyers when building a brand. Marks can be infringing if spelling is only slightly different, if it resembles another and likely to deceive and cause confusion.

    Read more …

  • Bullying in the workplace by a body corporate

    Bullying in the workplace by a body corporate

    This investigation reveals the legal implications of workplace bullying in a body corporate. Find out what the Obligations of Reasonableness and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) mean for workers and how to apply for an order to stop the bullying.

    Read more …

  • Security for legal costs in patent invalidity cross-claims

    Security for legal costs in patent invalidity cross-claims

    This article examines the application of section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in 50/50 or equal ownership disputes. The WA Supreme Court has found that oppressive conduct can still be asserted in equal ownership situations.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend