A Paris-based software house signs a Polish distribution partner, ships its source code under a licensing agreement, and assumes French copyright registration covers it in Poland. Six months later, a dispute arises. The Polish partner claims co-authorship of customised modules. The French company discovers it never registered a trademark in Poland, never filed a patent with the European Patent Office designating Poland, and never secured a written IP assignment from its Warsaw-based developers. The window to act cheaply has closed.

French technology companies entering Poland must build a multi-layer IP protection strategy that covers trademarks, copyright, patents, and trade secrets before commercial activity begins. Polish law – primarily the Prawo własności przemysłowej (Industrial Property Law, PWP) and the Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych (Copyright and Related Rights Act, CRRA) – provides strong protection, but only to parties who have taken the correct registration and contractual steps. A European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) trademark covering France automatically extends to Poland; a standalone French trademark does not.

This guide walks through the four key steps: assessing your existing IP portfolio, choosing the right registration routes, drafting Poland-specific contracts, and embedding ongoing compliance. Each section includes a concrete timeline, cost range, and common mistake to avoid. The guide also addresses how the EU AI Act, GDPR Poland requirements, and DORA compliance intersect with IP strategy for technology companies.

How does Polish IP law protect French technology assets?

Polish IP protection rests on two parallel tracks. Industrial property rights – trademarks, patents, utility models, and industrial designs – are administered by the Urząd Patentowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Polish Patent Office, UPRP). Copyright arises automatically on creation and requires no registration; the CRRA governs it. Both tracks interact with EU-level instruments, including EU trademarks at EUIPO and European patents at the European Patent Office (EPO).

For a French tech company, the practical starting point is the trademark. An EU trademark registered at EUIPO covers all 27 member states, including Poland, from a single filing. Registration takes roughly six to eight months and costs approximately EUR 850 for one class at EUIPO. If your brand already holds an EU trademark, Polish protection is automatic – but enforcement still requires a Polish-law litigation strategy and local counsel familiar with the Sąd Okręgowy (Regional Court) in Warsaw or Kraków, which handles IP disputes.

Copyright protection is where French companies most often assume too much. The CRRA grants copyright to the creator, not the employer, unless a specific employment contract clause transfers rights to the employer. This matters enormously when Polish developers are hired through B2B contracts or through a Polish subsidiary. Without an explicit written assignment – covering both pola eksploatacji (fields of exploitation) and moral rights waivers – the developer retains rights. We secured a reversal of an IP ownership dispute for a software client in the Mazowieckie region (spring 2025), after their Polish B2B contractor claimed co-authorship of a core product module.

Trade secrets receive protection under the Ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji (Act on Combating Unfair Competition, ACUC). To qualify, information must be kept confidential through reasonable measures. A non-disclosure agreement governed by French law alone is insufficient; Polish courts apply ACUC standards. The takeaway: every contract with a Polish party must include ACUC-compliant confidentiality provisions.

What registration steps should a French tech company take in Poland?

Registration strategy depends on the asset type. The decision matrix below maps each IP category to the right instrument, timeline, and approximate cost. Choosing the wrong route – for example, filing a national trademark at UPRP instead of relying on an existing EUIPO registration – wastes time and money without adding protection.

For trademarks, the hierarchy is: (1) EU trademark at EUIPO if not yet filed – budget EUR 850 to EUR 1,100 and six to eight months; (2) national filing at UPRP if the EUIPO route is blocked by a conflict – budget PLN 550 for one class, with a decision in approximately 12 months; (3) international registration under the Madrid Protocol if markets outside the EU are also relevant. French companies with an existing INPI (French National Institute of Industrial Property) registration should consider converting to an EU trademark before entering Poland, as the INPI mark gives no Polish rights.

For patents, the EPO route designating Poland is standard for technology inventions. Filing costs vary widely – budget EUR 4,000 to EUR 8,000 for preparation and filing, with grant typically taking three to five years. Software patents face restrictions under both Polish and European patent law; protection for software-implemented inventions is available only where a technical effect is demonstrated. This is a frequent misconception among French SaaS founders.

  • EU trademark (EUIPO): one filing covers Poland – six to eight months, from EUR 850
  • National trademark (UPRP): Poland-only, useful for defensive filings – approximately 12 months, from PLN 550
  • European patent (EPO, Poland designation): three to five years to grant, from EUR 4,000
  • Utility model (UPRP): faster than patent, protects technical solutions – six months, from PLN 550
  • Industrial design (EUIPO or UPRP): covers product appearance – four to six months

Domain names under the .pl country-code top-level domain are managed by NASK (Research and Academic Computer Network). Registration costs PLN 50 to PLN 100 per year. French companies should register their brand as a .pl domain early; Polish cybersquatting disputes are resolved through NASK's arbitration procedure, but prevention is far cheaper than dispute resolution.

Which contracts are essential for IP protection in Poland?

Registration alone does not protect IP in Poland. Contracts fill the gaps that registration leaves open – particularly for copyright, trade secrets, and employee-created innovations. Three contract types are non-negotiable for any French tech company operating in Poland.

First, the IP assignment agreement. Every Polish developer, whether employed or engaged as a B2B contractor, must sign a written assignment covering all fields of exploitation listed in the CRRA. The list is exhaustive and must be specified in the contract; a general "all rights transferred" clause is insufficient under Polish law. The assignment must also address future fields of exploitation created after the contract date. Failure to specify fields forfeits rights – and that forfeiture is irreversible once the developer has left the company.

Second, the non-disclosure and trade secret agreement. This must reference ACUC standards explicitly, define the scope of confidential information, set a duration (Polish courts are sceptical of unlimited NDA terms – three to five years is standard), and specify remedies. A French-law NDA presented to a Polish contractor will not be enforced by a Polish court in the same way it would be in France.

Third, the technology licensing agreement for Polish distributors or partners. This must specify the territory (Poland), the term, permitted sub-licensing, and the governing law. Many French companies default to French law as the governing law; this is acceptable for B2B contracts, but enforcement of an injunction in Poland requires Polish court proceedings regardless of governing law. Including a Polish-language version, or at least a Polish translation clause, reduces litigation risk significantly.

For companies subject to DORA compliance – particularly those providing ICT services to regulated financial entities in Poland – contractual IP provisions must also address audit rights, incident reporting obligations, and data portability. The Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (Polish Financial Supervision Authority, KNF) supervises DORA implementation in Poland and expects IP-related contractual clauses to meet specific standards.

How do AI Act and GDPR obligations affect IP strategy in Poland?

French tech companies deploying AI-enabled products in Poland face a dual compliance layer: the EU AI Act (fully applicable across member states, including Poland) and GDPR Poland enforcement by the Urząd Ochrony Danych Osobowych (Personal Data Protection Office, UODO). Both instruments interact directly with IP strategy in ways that many companies overlook at the planning stage.

Under the AI Act, providers of high-risk AI systems must maintain technical documentation, including information about training data, model architecture, and performance metrics. This documentation often contains trade secrets. Companies must balance transparency obligations under the AI Act with trade secret protection under ACUC. The practical solution is a tiered disclosure framework: regulatory-facing documentation held separately from commercially sensitive IP, with access controls documented in writing.

GDPR Poland creates a parallel tension. Personal data processed to train AI models may be subject to data subject rights – including the right to erasure. If training data is embedded in model weights, erasure becomes technically complex. French companies should assess this risk during the IP audit phase, before the product is launched in Poland. We obtained interim measures protecting a French AI client's model architecture – assets valued at over EUR 3m – during a partnership dispute in Lower Silesia (winter 2025), where the counterparty sought access to training data under a GDPR subject access request as a litigation tactic.

The intersection of GDPR and cross-border data flows is addressed in detail in our guide on data transfer from Poland to France: legal mechanisms. For IP strategy purposes, the key point is that personal data embedded in AI training sets must be covered by both a lawful transfer mechanism and an IP protection framework before the model is deployed in Poland.

The AI Act also introduces liability implications for IP ownership. If a high-risk AI system causes harm, the provider – not the Polish deployer – bears primary liability. French companies licensing AI tools to Polish partners must ensure the licensing agreement clearly allocates liability, indemnifies the licensor for misuse, and specifies which party owns modifications made by the Polish deployer.

What are the three business scenarios for French tech companies?

IP strategy is not one-size-fits-all. The right approach depends on how a French tech company enters Poland. Three scenarios illustrate the divergence.

Scenario 1 – SaaS provider with no Polish entity. A Bordeaux-based SaaS company sells subscriptions to Polish SMEs through a reseller. The company has no Polish employees and no physical presence. The primary IP risk is trademark infringement by the reseller and unauthorised modification of the software. The strategy: register an EU trademark at EUIPO (if not already done), include a strict IP clause in the reseller agreement, and register the .pl domain. Budget: EUR 1,000 to EUR 2,000 for the first year. The company should also review whether its terms of service comply with Polish consumer protection law – a separate but linked compliance requirement.

Scenario 2 – Software development centre in Warsaw. A Lyon-based tech group establishes a Polish subsidiary that employs 30 developers. All code is developed in Poland. The primary IP risk is that copyright vests in individual developers unless correctly assigned. The strategy: implement a standard IP assignment clause in every employment contract, conduct a retrospective assignment exercise for existing employees, and register any patentable inventions at EPO. Budget: PLN 15,000 to PLN 30,000 for legal structuring, plus patent costs. For a comparison of branch versus subsidiary structures and their IP implications, see our analysis of branch vs. subsidiary in Poland for France groups.

Scenario 3 – AI product entering a regulated Polish market. A Paris-based fintech deploys an AI-powered credit scoring tool through a Polish bank. DORA compliance, AI Act obligations, and GDPR Poland requirements all apply simultaneously. The strategy: establish a complete IP register, draft a DORA-compliant technology agreement with the bank, implement a tiered trade secret framework, and coordinate with KNF supervisory expectations. Budget: EUR 8,000 to EUR 15,000 for initial legal structuring. This scenario also requires coordination between IP counsel and data protection counsel – a point where many companies underestimate cost and timeline.

For companies considering a similar approach in a neighbouring market, our guide on IP protection strategy for Switzerland tech companies in Poland provides a useful comparative reference on cross-border IP structuring.

What to prepare: IP protection checklist for French tech companies

Before engaging Polish counsel, a French tech company should complete an internal IP audit. The checklist below covers the minimum preparation steps. Each item can be completed in-house; the output then forms the basis for the legal strategy.

  • Identify all IP assets used or developed in Poland: software, trademarks, patents, designs, trade secrets, and data sets
  • Confirm whether existing EUIPO or EPO registrations cover Poland – and whether they are current
  • Review all contracts with Polish employees, contractors, and partners for IP assignment and confidentiality clauses
  • Map personal data flows between France and Poland and identify any AI training data subject to GDPR Poland obligations
  • Assess AI Act classification for any AI-enabled products deployed in Poland

This audit typically takes two to three weeks internally and identifies the gaps that legal counsel then addresses. Companies that skip the audit phase routinely discover mid-project that a critical IP assignment is missing or that a trademark conflict exists in Poland – both of which delay commercial timelines by three to six months.

Specific situations require immediate attention. If your company has already signed a Polish development contract without an IP assignment clause, act within 30 days. The longer the gap between contract execution and remediation, the harder it becomes to negotiate a retrospective assignment on commercially reasonable terms. Delay forfeits negotiating leverage – and that loss is rarely recoverable.

Your company's specific IP exposure in Poland depends on facts that a standard checklist cannot fully capture. To receive an expert assessment of your IP protection strategy, contact info@kordeckipartners.com. Our team will review your existing portfolio, identify the most material gaps, and propose a sequenced action plan with clear timelines and costs.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Does a French copyright registration protect software in Poland?

A: France does not operate a copyright registration system in the same way as the United States; French copyright arises automatically on creation, as it does in Poland. What matters in Poland is whether the Copyright and Related Rights Act requirements are met – particularly the written IP assignment from individual authors to the company. A French company that developed software using Polish contractors or employees must have written assignments covering all fields of exploitation under Polish law. Without those assignments, the Polish developers retain copyright regardless of what French law provides.

Q: How long does trademark registration take in Poland, and what does it cost?

A: If your company already holds an EU trademark registered at EUIPO, Polish protection is immediate – no additional filing is required. If you need a national Polish trademark, the Polish Patent Office typically issues a decision within 12 months of filing. The official filing fee is PLN 550 for one class of goods or services. Legal fees for a straightforward application add PLN 2,000 to PLN 4,000. A common misconception is that the INPI registration in France provides any protection in Poland; it does not.

Q: What happens if a Polish B2B developer refuses to sign a retrospective IP assignment?

A: This is one of the most commercially sensitive situations in Polish IP practice. If the developer refuses, the company may need to negotiate a licence rather than an assignment, or restructure the product to remove the disputed modules. In some cases, the dispute can be resolved through the Act on Combating Unfair Competition if the developer is using confidential information beyond the scope of the original engagement. Prevention is far more effective: every B2B contract should include an IP assignment clause before work begins. Retroactive remediation typically costs three to five times more than upfront drafting.

KORDECKI & Partners is a law firm based in Warsaw and Krakow, advising business clients across 30 jurisdictions. Our team combines expertise in Polish and international law with a practical approach to IP protection, technology law, AI Act compliance, and DORA implementation. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. KORDECKI & Partners assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@kordeckipartners.com.