A Warsaw-based software company had built a genuinely valuable product over three years. Its codebase, brand identity, and client data architecture were all unprotected. When a former employee joined a competitor, the founders discovered that "everyone knows IP matters" is not the same as having done anything about it.

Polish tech companies face a layered IP challenge: copyright attaches automatically to software, but trademark, patent, and database rights require active registration or contractual assignment. Under Polish intellectual property law, an employer does not automatically own software created by an employee unless the employment contract explicitly addresses it. Failing to structure these rights before a dispute arises forfeits protection that cannot easily be recovered.

This case study traces how we helped a mid-sized Polish software house audit its IP position, close the critical gaps, and build a strategy that held up when tested. The lessons apply to any tech company operating under Polish law.

What was the background of this IP matter?

The client – a Warsaw-based SaaS company with 45 employees – had never conducted a formal IP audit. Its founders assumed that because they paid salaries, they owned everything their developers produced. That assumption was wrong in two important ways.

First, several core modules had been built by contractors under service agreements that said nothing about IP assignment. Under the ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych (Act on Copyright and Related Rights), a contractor retains copyright unless it is expressly transferred in writing. Second, the company's product name had been in use for four years but was never registered as a trademark at the Polish Patent Office (Urząd Patentowy RP, UPRP) or at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). A competitor had filed a near-identical mark six months earlier.

The company also held a database of roughly 180,000 client records. Database rights under Polish law – derived from the EU Database Directive – protect substantial investment in data compilation. Those rights had never been documented or asserted. The exposure was material: potential loss of the product name, uncertain ownership of key code, and an unprotected data asset worth more than the software itself.

What strategy did we recommend?

We structured the engagement in three parallel tracks, each with a defined deadline. The first track was contractual remediation: every contractor agreement had to be amended within 30 days to include a retrospective IP assignment clause. Polish courts have accepted such retroactive assignments, but the window narrows once litigation begins.

The second track was trademark filing. We filed a Polish national application at the UPRP (examination period: roughly 6 months) and an EU-wide application at EUIPO (standard examination: 4–6 months). Filing both in parallel preserved the priority date under the Paris Convention. The competitor's conflicting mark created a real risk of opposition, so we prepared a coexistence argument based on different goods and services classes.

The third track addressed the AI Act Poland implications. The company's product included an automated decision-making module used in HR screening – a use case that falls within the high-risk category under the EU AI Act. We mapped the product against the Act's conformity requirements and flagged the need for technical documentation before the relevant provisions took effect. DORA compliance was also reviewed, as one enterprise client was a regulated financial institution subject to ICT risk-management obligations.

We also reviewed the company's GDPR Poland data-processing agreements. The client database required a data-processing agreement with each enterprise customer and a record of processing activities filed internally. Neither existed. An unaddressed GDPR gap of this scale can attract fines from the Personal Data Protection Office (Urząd Ochrony Danych Osobowych, UODO) of up to EUR 20m or 4% of global annual turnover.

Our team secured retrospective IP assignments covering modules valued at over PLN 3m for this Warsaw-based client (winter 2025). The trademark opposition was resolved through a coexistence agreement within 90 days of filing.

What are the transferable lessons for Polish tech companies?

Three patterns appear in almost every tech IP matter we handle. Recognising them early cuts remediation costs significantly.

  • Contractor agreements without assignment clauses – the single most common gap. Every service agreement should include an explicit, written IP transfer.
  • Trademark delay – companies routinely wait until a product is profitable before filing. By then, a third party may have priority.
  • Undocumented database rights – substantial investment in data compilation creates protectable rights, but only if documented.
  • AI Act readiness – automated decision-making features trigger conformity obligations that cannot be addressed retroactively at short notice.

A second micro-case illustrates the cross-border dimension. We obtained an interim injunction protecting source code worth over EUR 1.5m for an IT company in Małopolska (spring 2025). The injunction was granted within 14 days of filing – a timeline only achievable because the company had clean, documented IP ownership to present to the court. Without that documentation, the application would have failed.

For companies with German parent entities or cross-border licensing arrangements, the structural considerations differ. See our related analysis of IP protection strategy for Germany tech companies in Poland for the cross-border specifics. For companies facing regulatory exposure alongside IP risk, our guide on fiscal criminal defence and KKS strategy for board members addresses personal liability dimensions. UODO enforcement trends, including recent fines under GDPR Poland, are covered in our article on GDPR fines in Poland and UODO enforcement trends.

The checklist below captures the minimum steps any Polish tech company should complete before a dispute or regulatory review forces the issue.

What to prepare – IP baseline checklist:

  • Written IP assignment clauses in all contractor and employment agreements
  • Trademark applications filed at UPRP and/or EUIPO before market launch
  • Database rights documented with evidence of investment in data compilation
  • AI Act conformity mapping for any automated decision-making features
  • GDPR data-processing agreements with all enterprise clients

Specific company situations require individual analysis. An IP audit that costs a fraction of a percent of product value can close gaps that, left open, become irreversible once litigation or a regulatory investigation begins.

To receive an expert assessment of your company's IP position under Polish law, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Does a Polish employer automatically own software written by its employees?

A: Not entirely. Under Polish copyright law, an employer acquires economic rights to software created by an employee in the course of employment – but only within the scope of the employment relationship. Software created outside working hours or beyond the defined scope may remain with the employee. Contractor-created software requires an explicit written assignment regardless of circumstances. Every employment and service agreement should address this precisely.

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

A: A national trademark application filed at the Polish Patent Office (UPRP) typically takes 6 to 9 months from filing to registration, assuming no opposition. The official filing fee starts at PLN 450 for a single class. An EU-wide application at EUIPO costs EUR 850 for one class and takes 4 to 6 months. Filing both in parallel is common for companies with cross-border operations, as it secures a unified priority date.

Q: Many tech founders believe copyright automatically protects their software fully. Is that correct?

A: This is the most common misconception we encounter. Copyright does attach automatically to original software, but it protects expression – not the underlying idea, algorithm, or product name. A competitor can legally replicate the functional concept using different code. Trademark protects the brand. Patents (where available) protect technical methods. Database rights protect data investment. A complete IP strategy requires all four layers, not copyright alone.

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 regulation, AI Act compliance, and DORA compliance for tech companies. 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.