A Warsaw-based software house discovered, mid-project, that a former employee had copied proprietary source code and used it to build a competing product. The client had no formal copyright assignment agreement in place. The situation looked unrecoverable.
Software is protected as a literary work under the Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych (Act on Copyright and Related Rights, UPAPP). Protection arises automatically on creation – no registration is required. However, ownership disputes and enforcement gaps frequently arise when written agreements are absent, making proactive documentation the single most important protective measure a software company can take.
This case study traces how we structured a response to that discovery – from initial audit to injunctive relief – and draws out the practical lessons that apply to any technology business operating in Poland. The structure follows four stages: background, legal strategy, process, and transferable lessons.
What was the background to the dispute?
The client was a mid-size Polish software house developing a SaaS platform for logistics clients. A developer who had left the company six months earlier launched a near-identical product. Side-by-side code comparison showed substantial similarities in architecture and several modules. The former employee's new company had already approached two of the client's anchor customers.
The core legal problem was ownership. Under Polish copyright law, works created by an employee within the scope of their employment duties belong to the employer – but only where the employment contract clearly defines those duties. The client's contracts were generic. They said nothing about software development specifically, and contained no IP assignment clause. That gap created genuine uncertainty about whether the client held enforceable rights at all.
A secondary problem involved third-party libraries. Several modules incorporated open-source components under licences requiring attribution or restricting commercial sublicensing. Any enforcement action risked exposing the client's own compliance weaknesses. We advised the client to commission a software composition analysis before filing anything.
- No written IP assignment in employment contracts
- No code versioning records showing authorship dates
- Open-source licence obligations unaudited
- No trademark registration for the product name
How did the legal strategy address the ownership gap?
The strategy had three pillars: establish ownership on the best available evidence, secure interim measures quickly, and preserve enforcement options across multiple legal bases. Speed mattered. Every week the competitor operated, the client's customer relationships eroded – an irreversible commercial consequence that no damages award could fully repair.
On ownership, we reconstructed the employment relationship through secondary evidence. Git commit histories, payroll records, internal Jira tickets, and email correspondence collectively demonstrated that the developer had written the disputed code during working hours, using company infrastructure, in response to product roadmap instructions. Polish copyright doctrine accepts contextual evidence of this kind when formal assignment language is missing. The Sąd Okręgowy (Regional Court) in Warsaw has accepted such reconstructed chains of authorship in prior IP matters.
We also identified a parallel claim under unfair competition law. The Ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji (Act on Combating Unfair Competition, UZNK) covers misappropriation of trade secrets independently of copyright. That gave us a second cause of action that did not depend on resolving the ownership question. We filed both claims simultaneously.
We secured a referral to our data-transfer compliance work for context on how the codebase interacted with GDPR obligations – relevant because the SaaS platform processed personal data. You can read more about cross-border data frameworks in our note on data transfer from Poland to France.
We obtained interim injunctive relief within 14 days of filing. The Regional Court issued an order prohibiting the defendant from distributing the competing product pending full hearing. That order was the decisive commercial intervention.
What did the process reveal about enforcement mechanics?
Interim measures under Polish civil procedure require the applicant to demonstrate a plausible claim (uprawdopodobnienie roszczenia) and a legal interest in immediate protection. Courts apply these tests strictly. Our application ran to 40 pages, with annexed technical expert opinion comparing the codebases. The opinion identified 34 matching functional modules – enough to satisfy the plausibility threshold.
The defendant challenged the interim order within the statutory 7-day window. The challenge raised two arguments: that the similarities reflected industry-standard patterns, not copying; and that the plaintiff lacked standing given the deficient employment contracts. Both arguments were rejected at the second-instance review. The Regional Court upheld the injunction in full.
We secured a reversal of the defendant's initial standing challenge for a software client in the Mazowieckie region (spring 2026). The Regional Court confirmed that contextual evidence of employment-scope authorship is sufficient where formal assignment language is absent.
The merits phase produced a settlement in the client's favour within four months. The settlement included a licence buyout, a non-compete undertaking, and customer-poaching restrictions. The client's product name – unregistered at the time of the dispute – was subsequently registered as a trademark with the Urząd Patentowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Patent Office of the Republic of Poland, UPRP). That registration now provides a separate enforcement layer for future incidents.
What lessons apply to software businesses operating in Poland?
The client's situation was recoverable, but only because the factual record was rich enough to substitute for missing contractual language. Most disputes are not that forgiving. The lessons from this matter are structural – they concern what a software business should have in place before any dispute arises.
First, employment and contractor agreements must contain explicit IP assignment clauses. The statutory employer-ownership rule under UPAPP applies to employees, not contractors. Freelancers retain copyright by default unless they assign it in writing. Many Polish software houses use a hybrid workforce without distinguishing between the two categories in their contracts. That is a structural vulnerability.
Second, code versioning is legal evidence. Git histories, commit timestamps, and branch access logs establish authorship and date of creation. Companies that maintain disciplined version control are in a materially stronger enforcement position than those that do not. The cost of implementing this is near zero. The cost of reconstructing authorship after a dispute is not.
Third, the intersection of software copyright with newer regulatory frameworks is expanding. The EU AI Act imposes documentation and transparency obligations on AI-enabled systems – relevant where a product incorporates machine-learning components. Our analysis of AI Act high-risk classification sets out which systems trigger the most demanding compliance requirements. Software businesses building AI features need IP and regulatory counsel working in parallel, not sequentially.
Fourth, DORA compliance and GDPR Poland obligations increasingly intersect with IP strategy. A software product that processes financial data or personal data carries regulatory exposure that can complicate enforcement – as this case illustrated with the open-source licence issue. Compliance gaps discovered during litigation weaken negotiating position.
We also advised the client on parallel trademark protection. Copyright protects expression; it does not protect a product name or logo. Trademark registration at UPRP costs under PLN 1,500 per class and provides 10-year protection renewable indefinitely. Every software company that has not registered its product name is leaving an enforcement gap open.
- Draft explicit IP assignment clauses in all employment and contractor agreements
- Maintain versioned code repositories as contemporaneous authorship records
- Audit open-source licence obligations before any enforcement action
- Register product names and logos as trademarks with UPRP
- Review AI Act and DORA compliance obligations if the product includes AI or financial-data features
For context on related digital-compliance obligations, our note on KSeF penalties illustrates how regulatory non-compliance in adjacent areas can compound operational risk for technology businesses.
We obtained interim injunctive relief for a SaaS client in the Mazowieckie region (spring 2026) within 14 days of filing, halting distribution of a competing product based on misappropriated source code. The matter settled within four months, with full IP transfer and customer-protection undertakings.
Specific situations require specific analysis. If your company has experienced code misappropriation, or if you want to audit your IP agreements before a dispute arises, the cost of inaction compounds quickly – and some consequences, including lost customer relationships, are not reversible. To discuss how software copyright protection applies to your situation, email info@kordeckipartners.com.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Does software copyright in Poland require registration to be enforceable?
A: No. Copyright protection under the Act on Copyright and Related Rights arises automatically when the work is created. There is no registration system for copyright in Poland. However, maintaining dated records – version control logs, commit histories, signed agreements – is essential for proving ownership and authorship in a dispute.
Q: Who owns software written by a contractor, not an employee?
A: A contractor retains copyright by default. The statutory employer-ownership rule applies only to works created by employees within the scope of their employment. For contractors, ownership transfers only through a written assignment clause in the service agreement. Verbal agreements or implied transfers are not sufficient under Polish law.
Q: How long does it take to obtain interim injunctive relief in a software copyright case?
A: Polish civil procedure allows courts to grant interim measures within days of a well-prepared application. In practice, straightforward applications with strong technical evidence are decided within 7 to 21 days. The applicant must demonstrate a plausible claim and a legal interest in immediate protection. A detailed technical opinion comparing the disputed codebases significantly strengthens the application.
About KORDECKI & Partners: 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, technology law, AI Act compliance, and software copyright protection. 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.