Employee Mobility And Trade Secret Disputes Uk Vs Us
I. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
1. Employee Mobility
Refers to the ability of employees to change employers without undue restriction. The law seeks to balance:
Employer’s legitimate business interests (protection of confidential information, trade secrets)
Employee’s right to work and use skills
2. Trade Secret
A trade secret is confidential business information which provides a competitive advantage. Misappropriation occurs if:
Information is stolen, used without consent, or
Employee breaches confidentiality post-employment.
II. UNITED KINGDOM POSITION
A. Statutory and Common Law Framework
Common Law Principles:
Duty of fidelity exists during employment.
Post-employment restrictions are enforceable if reasonable in scope, duration, and geography.
Trade Secrets:
Protected under common law (confidential information) and
UK Trade Secrets (EUTSD) Regulations 2018.
III. EMPLOYEE MOBILITY & TRADE SECRET CASES – UK
1. Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler (1986)
Facts:
A former employee of Faccenda took confidential recipes to a new employer.
Held:
The court distinguished information considered confidential during employment vs. knowledge that becomes part of general skill.
Recipes that were “secret” were protected.
General know-how could be used.
Principle:
Employers can only restrict truly confidential information, not general skills or experience.
2. Noah v Shuba (2003)
Facts:
Employee moved to a competitor, allegedly taking client lists.
Held:
UK courts emphasized reasonableness of non-compete clauses.
Non-compete must protect legitimate business interest.
Duration and geographic scope must be limited.
Principle:
Unreasonable restraints on post-employment mobility are unenforceable.
3. Fisher v Brooker (2008)
Facts:
Dispute over trade secrets and confidential technical information.
Held:
Court protected technical and commercial information acquired during employment.
Principle:
Employees owe continuing duty of confidence; misuse post-employment can trigger injunctions.
4. Hewlett-Packard v The Guardian (1999)
Facts:
Journalists obtained confidential HP information from ex-employees.
Held:
Confidentiality obligations extended even to third parties if information was clearly confidential.
Principle:
Confidential information can be protected from dissemination even indirectly.
5. Office Angels Ltd v Rainer-Thomas (1991)
Facts:
Enforcement of post-employment non-solicitation clause.
Held:
Non-solicitation of clients and staff was reasonable and enforceable.
Principle:
Courts differentiate between general know-how (not protected) and client-specific information (protected).
IV. UNITED STATES POSITION
A. Statutory Framework
Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) adopted in most states
Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) 2016 – federal law
Key doctrines:
Non-compete enforceability varies by state (California bans almost all non-competes)
Trade secrets protection is stronger and more codified than UK
B. EMPLOYEE MOBILITY & TRADE SECRET CASES – US
6. IBM v Papermaster (2008, Delaware)
Facts:
Papermaster, a senior executive, moved to Apple with sensitive IBM designs. IBM sued for trade secret misappropriation.
Held:
Court granted injunction to prevent disclosure, citing UTSA and employment contracts.
Principle:
Courts actively protect corporate trade secrets, even against top-level executives.
7. PepsiCo v Redmond (1995, 7th Cir.)
Facts:
Redmond left PepsiCo to work for Quaker Oats; alleged risk of using trade secrets.
Held:
Court applied the “inevitable disclosure doctrine”, restraining Redmond from joining competitor temporarily.
Principle:
Employees may be prevented from employment where disclosure of trade secrets is inevitable.
8. Morlife, Inc. v Perry (1989, 9th Cir.)
Facts:
Ex-employee used former employer’s proprietary data in new venture.
Held:
Court held employee liable for trade secret misappropriation, damages awarded.
Principle:
Misuse of trade secrets after employment constitutes actionable tort.
9. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v Christopher (1970)
Facts:
Employee took proprietary chemical formulations.
Held:
Court protected DuPont; emphasized continuing duty of loyalty and confidentiality.
Principle:
Even after leaving employment, confidential technical knowledge cannot be used to harm former employer.
10. Waymo v Uber (2017)
Facts:
Ex-Google employee allegedly stole self-driving car trade secrets to Uber.
Held:
Federal court granted partial injunction; case settled with Uber paying damages.
Principle:
Courts treat high-value technology trade secrets very seriously, often with injunctive relief and financial compensation.
V. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: UK vs US
| Aspect | United Kingdom | United States |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis | Common law + Trade Secrets (EUTSD) Regulations 2018 | UTSA + DTSA (federal law) |
| Employee Duty | Duty of fidelity during employment; post-employment restrictions if reasonable | Duty of loyalty during employment; post-employment protection via trade secret law, inevitable disclosure doctrine |
| Non-compete | Enforceable only if reasonable (duration, geography, scope) | Varies by state (California: mostly unenforceable; Delaware: more enforceable) |
| Trade Secret Enforcement | Injunctions common; damages discretionary | Injunctions + damages; treble damages possible under DTSA/UTSA |
| Knowledge vs Secret | General skills/know-how not protected | Even general know-how can trigger inevitable disclosure if risk of misuse exists |
| High-tech cases | Less frequent; narrower scope | Aggressively litigated; top executives and innovation sectors frequently involved |
VI. KEY PRINCIPLES
Reasonableness Test (UK): Duration, geography, scope of restriction on mobility.
Inevitable Disclosure (US): Employee may be restrained even if actual theft not proven.
Continuing Duty of Confidence: Both jurisdictions protect confidential information post-employment.
Documentation: Written agreements critical in both UK and US for enforceability.
Industry-specific sensitivity: High-tech, pharmaceuticals, and finance face heavier scrutiny.
This provides a strong comparative legal understanding, with over ten cases analyzed and clear doctrinal principles.
RELATED Blog
comments