A Warsaw-based software company ships its first SaaS product, secures early customers, and then discovers a competitor has registered an identical trademark. The codebase is unprotected. The brand is unregistered. The window to act has already narrowed. This scenario repeats itself across Poland's technology sector with predictable regularity.

Polish tech companies face a convergence of IP risks that is sharpening in 2025 and 2026. New obligations under the EU AI Act, evolving GDPR Poland enforcement, and DORA compliance requirements each carry their own IP dimensions – from algorithmic transparency to data ownership. Failure to register a trademark before a competitor does is irreversible. Failing to document software ownership forfeits enforcement rights entirely.

This alert covers three immediate action areas: what has changed in the regulatory environment, which companies are affected and at what thresholds, and what steps must be taken now. Each section includes at least one concrete deadline or financial figure.

What has changed for Polish tech companies in 2025–2026?

The IP environment for Polish technology businesses shifted materially in 2025. The EU AI Act entered phased application, with the first binding obligations – covering prohibited AI systems – effective from February 2025. High-risk AI system requirements follow in August 2026. Any tech company deploying AI-driven tools must now map those tools against the Act's classification framework or risk penalties reaching EUR 35 million.

DORA compliance deadlines hit financial-sector technology providers in January 2025. If your company supplies software or data services to regulated financial institutions, DORA contractual requirements apply to you directly. The Urząd Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego (Polish Financial Supervision Authority, KNF) has signalled active supervision of ICT third-party providers. Contracts without adequate IP ownership clauses and source-code escrow provisions are now a liability, not merely a gap.

GDPR Poland enforcement by the Urząd Ochrony Danych Osobowych (Personal Data Protection Office, UODO) has also intensified. Data processed by AI tools raises fresh questions about who owns derived datasets and model outputs. These are IP questions as much as privacy questions. The Urząd Patentowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Patent Office of the Republic of Poland, UPRP) has seen a rise in software-adjacent patent applications as companies attempt to lock in positional advantage before competitors do.

Trademark squatting remains the most immediate threat. Registration at the UPRP takes roughly 6 to 9 months for a national mark. European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) registration adds a further layer but requires a separate filing. Companies that delay registration by even one quarter risk finding their brand name already taken.

Who is affected – and at what thresholds?

Not every tech company faces the same exposure. The risk profile depends on three variables: company size, product type, and customer base. Understanding which category applies to your business determines which IP instruments are urgent and which can wait 12 months.

Startups and scale-ups with fewer than 50 employees are most exposed on trademark and copyright. They typically lack formal IP assignment agreements with founders and early contractors. Under Polish copyright law, software created by an employee belongs to the employer – but only if the employment contract explicitly covers that scope. Work done by a contractor belongs to the contractor by default. A company that has paid for development without a written assignment has no enforceable IP rights. That gap precludes licensing, investment, and exit.

  • Companies deploying AI tools: AI Act classification review required before August 2026
  • ICT suppliers to banks or insurers: DORA contractual audit required now
  • Any company with a brand operating in more than one EU market: EUIPO trademark filing advised within 90 days
  • Companies with contractor-developed software: IP assignment agreements needed immediately
  • Businesses processing personal data through AI: GDPR Poland data-ownership mapping required

Mid-size companies above 250 employees face additional exposure under the AI Act's general-purpose AI (GPAI) model provisions. If your product integrates a third-party GPAI model, your licensing terms must now address transparency obligations. Failure to document this precludes a clean compliance posture and, more practically, blocks enterprise sales to regulated buyers.

We secured full IP ownership documentation for a SaaS company in Mazowieckie (spring 2026), resolving a contractor assignment gap that had blocked a EUR 3 million investment round for over four months. The issue was not the law – it was the missing paperwork.

What immediate action steps are required?

Three actions carry the highest urgency. Each has a concrete deadline or financial consequence attached. Acting on all three within 60 days eliminates the majority of acute IP risk for most Polish tech companies.

First, conduct a trademark audit. Search the UPRP and EUIPO registers for your brand name, product names, and any distinctive slogans. If no registration exists, file within 30 days. A national UPRP filing costs approximately PLN 550 for one class. An EUIPO filing covering all 27 EU member states costs EUR 850 for one class. The cost of not filing – losing the mark to a squatter – is measured in rebranding expenses that routinely exceed PLN 200,000 for established products.

Second, audit all software IP ownership. Identify every piece of code created by contractors since the company's founding. For each piece, confirm whether a written IP assignment exists. If it does not, approach the contractor now. Waiting until a due diligence process begins forfeits negotiating leverage entirely. For AI Act compliance, review our analysis of AI Act high-risk classification, affected sectors and systems to understand which of your products require additional documentation.

Third, review your data and AML compliance posture. Tech companies processing financial data for clients should cross-reference their obligations under AML compliance obligations for Polish companies. Data processed in violation of AML rules cannot be licensed or monetised cleanly. For companies with US market ambitions, our IP and technology practice for the United States covers cross-border IP structuring in detail.

We assisted a Kraków-based fintech company (autumn 2025) in restructuring its IP ownership ahead of a Series A round, including trademark filings in three jurisdictions and contractor assignment documentation covering 18 months of prior development. The process took six weeks.

What to prepare – checklist

  • UPRP and EUIPO trademark search results for all active brand names
  • List of all contractors who contributed to software development, with contract dates
  • Copies of all contractor agreements – confirm IP assignment clauses exist
  • AI Act product classification memo (prohibited, high-risk, or general-purpose)
  • DORA contractual review if supplying ICT services to regulated financial entities

Specific circumstances at your company require individual assessment. A gap in any one of these areas can preclude investment, licensing, or market expansion – consequences that are not easily reversed once a deal process has begun.

To receive an expert assessment of your IP protection strategy, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Does my company need to register a trademark in Poland separately from the EU?

A: An EUIPO registration covers all 27 EU member states, including Poland, and is generally the more cost-effective route for companies operating across the EU. A national UPRP filing may be preferable if your business is currently Poland-only and budget is a constraint. The two systems coexist – a national registration does not block an EUIPO filing later. Processing time at the UPRP is approximately 6 to 9 months if no opposition is filed.

Q: Who owns software created by a freelance developer we paid?

A: Under Polish copyright law, software created by an independent contractor belongs to the contractor by default, regardless of payment. Ownership transfers to your company only through a written assignment agreement that explicitly covers the relevant works. Verbal agreements and invoices alone are insufficient. If no written assignment exists, your company cannot legally enforce, license, or sell that software.

Q: How does the AI Act affect our IP strategy?

A: The AI Act does not directly regulate IP ownership, but it creates compliance documentation requirements that overlap with IP management. High-risk AI systems require technical documentation, logs, and transparency disclosures. If those systems incorporate third-party components, your licensing agreements must permit the disclosures the Act requires. Gaps in licensing terms can make AI Act compliance structurally impossible – which in turn blocks market access for regulated buyers from August 2026 onward.

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 advisory. 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.