December 2014
Practice Group:
Intellectual Property
50,000 Reasons for Employees to Think Twice
Before Taking Their Employer's Copyright Works
and Confidential Information
Australian Intellectual Property Alert
By Lisa Egan and Caroline Judd
Federal Court of Australia Decision in Leica Geosystems Pty Ltd v
Koudstaal (No 3) [2014] FCA 1129
An ex-employee was recently ordered to pay his former employer AUD50,000 in
damages after the Federal Court (Court) held that the employee had infringed copyright
and breached his employment agreement and duty of confidentiality and acted in breach
of the Corporations Act 2001. What did he do? When he left employment he took a little
too much with him, in the form of source code and electronic files.
The Facts
Andrew Koudstaal was employed by the applicants Leica Australia (Leica) as a software
engineer from 10 May 2010 to 3 November 2011. On 3 November 2011, Mr. Koudstaal
resigned from his role at Leica to commence employment in a similar capacity at Leica's
competitor Automated Positioning Systems Pty Ltd (APS).
Before he left Leica, Mr. Koudstaal copied over 60GB of Leica's data onto an external
hard drive which he took with him when he left employment. The material taken included
source code, which Mr. Koudstaal built into executable program files during his
employment, and 'Virtual Machines' which contained all the tools to allow the source
code to be made into a product.
After a former Leica colleague noticed a folder called "Leica" on Mr. Koudstaal's
television screen (which was attached to an external hard drive) when visiting Mr.
Koudstaal's home, Leica sought, and was granted, a search and seizure order which was
executed at Mr. Koudstaal's home. During the execution of the search order, forensic
images were made of Mr. Koudstaal's desktop computer and external hard drive, and
subsequently a forensic image was made of his laptop.
Mr. Koudstaal acknowledged that in the period between 24 to 27 January 2012 (during
which time he was working for APS) he installed three pieces of computer software onto
his laptop, which were necessary for developing source code, and on 27 January 2012
he ran the Virtual Machine in a simulator to look at Leica's database files.
The Claims
Leica made the following claims against Mr. Koudstaal:
 Breach of copyright by reproducing a substantial part of Leica's works without its
licence, consent or authority, pursuant to s36(1) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
 Breach of the equitable duty of confidentiality that he owed as an employee by virtue
of his access to Leica's confidential information during the course of his employment,
50,000 Reasons for Employees to Think Twice About Taking Their
Employer's Copyright Works and Confidential Information
and which he breached by copying the volume of material taken in the days leading
up to his resignation.
 Breach of certain terms of his employment contract, including the obligation not to
place himself in a position of a conflict of interest.
 Breach of s183(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 by improperly using information
obtained through his position with Leica for his own advantage or the advantage of
another (APS).
The Findings
Leica successfully established all of its claims. In a judgment delivered on 23 October
2014, her Honour Justice Collier made the following key findings.
Copyright
Mr. Koudstaal had copied Leica's copyright protected materials (source code) for his own
purpose, and removed it from Leica's possession. Mr. Koudstaal's claim that he was
authorised to copy certain materials as part of his duties was negated by the fact that the
materials were taken on his last days of employment with Leica, and were reproduced
between 24 and 27 January 2012 when Mr. Koudstaal was working for APS.
Duty of Confidentiality
By copying and permanently removing confidential information which he had access to
by virtue of his employment with Leica, Mr. Koudstaal breached the equitable duty of
confidentiality that he owed to Leica. The confidential information included source code,
material ancillary to the source code and customer version lists. None of this confidential
information fell within Mr. Koudstaal's "stock of general knowledge and information"
which he was entitled to take with him when he left Leica to work for APS.
It was a telling fact that on Mr. Koudstaal's final day of employment at Leica he falsely
stated that he did not have any of Leica's property in his possession.
Justice Collier noted:
"That volume and complexity of material, considered in light of the fact that Mr.
Koudstaal took this material in the final two days of his employment when there is
nothing before me to support an inference that Mr. Koudstaal needed to
download the entirety of the applicants’ source code, point to a breach of Mr.
Koudstaal’s duty of confidentiality."
Employment Contract
Mr. Koudstaal was held to have breached the following provisions of his employment
contract with Leica:

To dedicate his time during working hours to Leica's business and affairs.

To faithfully and diligently perform his duties and exercise the powers consistent with
the position he held.

To use his best endeavours to promote Leica's interests.

To protect Leica's property from theft, loss, damage or neglect and to give immediate
notice to Leica if any of these matters came to his attention.
2
50,000 Reasons for Employees to Think Twice About Taking Their
Employer's Copyright Works and Confidential Information

To not enter into another employment or business activity which could reasonably
conflict with Leica's interests or the performance of his duties, or that could make use
of the confidential information imparted to him.

To return Leica's property in his possession, power or control on termination of his
employment or at Leica's request.
Justice Collier noted that:
"The evidence before me supports a finding that Mr. Koudstaal copied these
materials (which were at the heart of the applicants’ business) to provide him
with, among other things, a reference point to assist him in subsequent
employment with competitors of the applicants."
Corporations Act 2001
There was no evidence before the Court that Mr. Koudstaal disclosed any of the material
that he took to APS or that Leica suffered any detriment as a result of Mr. Koudstaal's
conduct. Despite this, the Court was satisfied that one reason for taking the material was
that it could potentially prove useful for Mr. Koudstaal as a reference source for future
work with APS. This was held to be an improper purpose and Mr. Koudstaal was
therefore found to have used information he obtained through his role at Leica to gain an
advantage for himself, or someone else, or to cause detriment to Leica.
The following four issues were relevant to this finding:

Mr. Koudstaal "was discriminating in respect of the Taken Material which he copied to
his external hard drive, and was fully aware that the relevant source codes were at
the core of the applicants’ business". The volume of material taken meant that he
would be able to run Leica's source code on the Virtual Machines.

There was undisputed evidence before the Court that working source code was of
enormous benefit when developing software for the same purpose.

Ms. Vella, Mr. Koudstaal's former colleague at Leica, was a credible witness and
gave evidence that Mr. Koudstaal had acknowledged on previous occasions that he
took source code from past employers and that he considered this practice to be
normal. Further, Mr. Koudstaal had made comments to Ms. Vella that he had looked
at the Leica source code to help him fix problems with APS' drill program and that at
APS they spoke about what Leica did and how they might follow suit.

Part of Mr. Koudstaal's motivation for operating the Virtual Machines on the Australia
Day weekend in 2012 related to work he was performing for APS.
Damages
Even though Mr. Koudstaal didn't pass on any of the materials that he took from Leica to
APS, and Leica didn't suffer any detriment as a result of Mr. Koudstaal's conduct, the
Court was prepared to conclude that he acted to benefit himself and potentially also APS
as a result.
Mr. Koudstaal was ordered to pay AUD1 in compensatory damages to Leica. The Court
was unable to award anything other than nominal compensatory damages as:

the materials taken were unique and valuable, however, this alone was not enough of
a basis for the Court to order damages
3
50,000 Reasons for Employees to Think Twice About Taking Their
Employer's Copyright Works and Confidential Information

Leica's source code or associated materials had not diminished in value as a result of
Mr. Koudstaal's conduct

there was no evidence that Leica lost any profits or market share or any customers to
APS as a result of Mr. Koudstaal's conduct

there was no evidence that Mr. Koudstaal's use of Leica's materials had any impact
on his work at APS to Leica's detriment

any inconvenience Leica suffered as a result of the proceeding was properly
compensated by an order for costs.
The Court was, however, prepared to order that Mr. Koudstaal pay Leica AUD50,000 in
additional damages for his copyright infringement. This amount represents the flagrancy
of Mr. Koudstaal's conduct which was in complete disregard of Leica's rights, and was
designed to deter similar infringements of copyright. While Leica's senior officers were
rightly anxious at the prospect that software at the core of its business was potentially
available for a competitor to obtain benefit, the Court noted that Mr. Koudstaal did not
appear to have benefitted financially from his infringement. He also expressed remorse
for his wrongful conduct.
The Court made declarations relating to Mr. Koudstaal's wrongdoing and restrained Mr.
Koudstaal from keeping, using or reproducing and publishing or disclosing Leica's
materials and ordered Mr. Koudstaal and his former solicitors to deliver up these
materials in their possession or under their control.
Mr. Koudstaal was also ordered to pay Leica's costs.
Lessons to Learn
Employers can take comfort in the fact that the Courts take a very serious view when it
comes to employees misusing their position for their own benefit. This case sends a
strong message to employees who are about to leave their jobs that they should only
take their general knowledge and information with them. Anything they may have created
for their employer during the course of their employment will be owned by the employer.
They will not be permitted to take these materials or confidential information imparted to
them when they leave.
Even if an employee is acting in his or her personal capacity, and may not have obtained
any benefit from his or her employer's materials which they have taken, the Courts will
not shy away from ordering an employee to pay a significant damages sum to punish this
wrongdoing and send a message to other employees who might stray on the wrong side
of the law in a similar situation.
Any employers who believe their copyright works and confidential materials might have
been taken or misused by a former employee(s) should contact Lisa Egan, Partner, for
advice on what recourse they may have.
4
50,000 Reasons for Employees to Think Twice About Taking Their
Employer's Copyright Works and Confidential Information
Authors:
Lisa Egan
lisa.egan@klgates.com
+61.3.9205.2099
Caroline Judd
caroline.judd@klgates.com
+61.3.9640.4247
Anchorage Austin Beijing Berlin Boston Brisbane Brussels Charleston Charlotte Chicago Dallas Doha Dubai Fort Worth Frankfurt
Harrisburg Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Melbourne Miami Milan Moscow Newark New York Orange County Palo Alto Paris
Perth Pittsburgh Portland Raleigh Research Triangle Park San Francisco São Paulo Seattle Seoul Shanghai Singapore Spokane Sydney
Taipei Tokyo Warsaw Washington, D.C. Wilmington
K&L Gates comprises more than 2,000 lawyers globally who practice in fully integrated offices located on five
continents. The firm represents leading multinational corporations, growth and middle-market companies,
capital markets participants and entrepreneurs in every major industry group as well as public sector entities,
educational institutions, philanthropic organizations and individuals. For more information about K&L Gates or
its locations, practices and registrations, visit www.klgates.com.
This publication is for informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. The information herein should not be used or relied upon
in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer.
© 2014 K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.
5