Case No. IP-2019-000175

”). 4.Ms Muller denies that she entered into any written agreement with DPA or that any such agreement was sent to her or shown to her at any time before or while she was working with DPA. She denies being bound by the Restrictive Covenants. 5.There is some measure of agreement between them, however. DPA claims, and Mr D’Aguanno and Ms Muller accept, that they provided services to DPA on the following implied terms: iii)they would act in accordance with DPA’s protocols including those relating to the storage of documents, including those in electronic form; iv)they would not remove from DPA’s possession documents, including those in electronic form; v)they would return all of DPA’s property, including electronic documents, when their contracts with DPA ended. 6.Both Mr D’Aguanno and Ms Muller accepted in cross-examination that they were made aware of DPA’s protocol requiring them to store all electronic files on DPA’s server and nowhere else. This was contained on a single A4 sheet of paper. 7.It is not disputed that during the period that Mr D’Aguanno and Ms Muller worked for DPA, they produced architectural plans and drawings for a number of DPA’s projects, and Mr D’Aguanno also produced threedimensional computer models (“3D models”) and computer-generated images (“CGIs”) for such projects. I will refer to the architectural plans and drawings, 3D models and CGIs together as “