When a former employee launches a similar product: what to do first
When a former employee launches a product that looks like yours, the first step is not a complaint — it is evidence. Secure the source code history, the database schema, and the employment or assignment agreement that fixed ownership before the person left. Only after that record is complete does a legal claim make sense.
What the law protects, and what it does not
Two EU instruments define what counts as protectable work in this situation. Directive 2009/24/EC treats source code as a literary work, giving the rightholder exclusive reproduction and adaptation rights over its expression. Directive 96/9/EC covers databases, protecting the selection and arrangement of their contents and, separately, the investment made in compiling them.
Neither instrument decides who the rightholder is inside an employment relationship. That question follows from the contract and from the national law that implements each directive, not from the directive text itself.
| Material | Governing instrument | What it protects |
|---|---|---|
| Source code | Directive 2009/24/EC | The expression of the program, not the underlying idea or algorithm |
| Database structure | Directive 96/9/EC | Selection and arrangement of contents, and substantial investment in compiling them |
| Design files, specifications | No matching EU instrument in this registry | Protection follows the applicable national regime; the mechanism, not a specific article, is what matters at this stage |
What changes once the product is public
Once a competing product surfaces, the practical clock works against the rightholder in a specific way. The longer the delay before a formal notice, the harder it becomes to argue that the resemblance was not the result of independent development. Acting within days, not weeks, preserves that argument.
What to do first
- Freeze the affected repository or file store. The CTO or IT lead locks version history and access logs before anyone touches them further.
- Pull the employment or contractor file. HR retrieves the signed agreement, the assignment clause, and any exit interview notes.
- Compare artefacts side by side. Technical counsel or an engineer maps identical functions, table structures, or asset names — impression alone is not enough.
- Draft a factual notice, not a threat. Counsel describes what was compared and what matches, and sends it before any public statement.
- Hold before disclosure. No public statement about the dispute until the comparison and the contract file are both complete.
Who decides, and on what evidence
The forum is normally the national civil court with jurisdiction over the former employer's domicile, or the venue set by the employment contract. The court weighs three types of evidence: the comparison report, the signed assignment, and the timeline of access before departure. Injunctive relief, where available, is decided first and fastest; the ownership question that follows takes longer.
If your situation differs
If the resemblance surfaces through a technology contract that includes audit rights, the first step is different: read An audit right is invoked without notice technology contract.
If the product in question is a tokenised asset rather than code or a database, the evidentiary questions shift again: see When a stablecoin peg is challenged in detail.
If the former employee's product has no code or database resemblance at all, only a similar business model, this page does not apply — that is a different, mostly non-IP dispute.
What this page does not solve
This page does not calculate damages, does not draft the assignment clause that should have been signed at hiring, and does not tell you whether the resemblance meets the threshold for infringement in a specific jurisdiction. That assessment needs the actual files, not a description of them.
Sources and limit
A structured comparison file is what a court or opposing counsel expects to see first. Asset in Spain: what can be established shows the format such a file takes when the underlying question is what can be documented, not what can be guessed.
A related failure mode arises when royalty payments from a licensed product stop mid-dispute; that sequence is covered separately in Debtor report when royalties stop explained.
Verified: 6 January 2026. Sources: Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (codified version); Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases.
Related reading
A closely related pattern is a deliverable that was formally accepted but never transferred on paper: When the deliverable was accepted but never transferred in.
FAQ
What is the first step when a former employee launches a similar product?
Secure evidence before any public statement: the source code history, the database structure, and the signed employment or assignment agreement that fixed ownership before departure.
Which deadline is already running?
No statutory clock starts automatically here; the pressure is evidentiary, not procedural. The longer the wait before a formal notice, the harder it becomes to show the resemblance was not independent development. Treat the window as days, not weeks.
Who decides, and on what evidence?
The competent national court, usually at the former employer's domicile or the venue set by contract, weighing the comparison report, the signed assignment, and the access timeline before the employee's departure.