A Warsaw-based software company discovered that a former senior developer had copied its core algorithm to a competitor before resigning. The client had no confidentiality agreement in place, no internal classification policy, and no audit trail showing the information was kept secret. The race to protect what remained – and recover what was lost – began on a Monday morning call.

Trade secret protection under Polish law is governed by the ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji (Act on Combating Unfair Competition, ZNKU), which defines a trade secret as information with commercial value that the holder has taken reasonable steps to keep confidential. A breach triggers civil claims for injunction, damages, and disgorgement of profits. Criminal liability under the same statute carries penalties of up to two years' imprisonment for intentional misappropriation.

This case study traces how we secured emergency interim measures and a negotiated settlement for the client. It draws on the background, the legal strategy we deployed, the procedural steps taken, and the lessons any business can apply before a breach occurs.

What was the background to the trade secret dispute?

The client was a mid-size software house in Mazowieckie, building proprietary pricing algorithms for retail clients. The departing developer had access to source code, training datasets, and client configuration files. He joined a direct competitor within two weeks of resignation. The competitor launched a functionally identical product within three months. That timeline alone was the first red flag.

The client's documentation gap was serious. No non-disclosure agreement had been signed. Employment contracts contained only a generic confidentiality clause – standard boilerplate with no definition of what counted as secret. The National Court Register (KRS) filing for the competitor showed the developer as a co-founder. That was the second red flag.

We conducted an internal audit within 72 hours of the first call. The audit identified three categories of information that plausibly met the ZNKU threshold: the pricing model logic, the client-specific calibration data, and the internal performance benchmarks. Crucially, server logs showed the developer had downloaded roughly 4 GB of files on his last working day. That download record became the cornerstone of our evidentiary strategy.

What legal strategy did we deploy?

Speed was essential. Under Polish civil procedure, interim measures (zabezpieczenie roszczenia) must be applied for before the defendant destroys or transfers the disputed material. We filed for an interim injunction within five days of instruction. The district court in Warsaw granted a freezing order covering the competitor's use of the disputed codebase within 48 hours of the hearing – a result that would have been impossible without the server-log evidence.

We also filed a criminal notification with the Polish prosecutor's office under ZNKU's criminal provisions. This parallel track served two purposes. First, it triggered the prosecutor's power to seize electronic devices – a tool unavailable in civil proceedings at that stage. Second, it created settlement pressure. Defendants in trade secret cases frequently reassess their position once criminal proceedings open.

We secured a reversal of unlawful use and a confidential settlement exceeding PLN 800,000 for the software client in Mazowieckie (spring 2026). The settlement included a permanent injunction, deletion of copied files verified by a court-appointed expert, and a contractual penalty clause for any future breach. The entire process, from first call to settlement, took eleven weeks.

  • Interim injunction filed within five days of instruction
  • Criminal notification filed in parallel to trigger device seizure
  • Server-log evidence preserved before any court hearing
  • Settlement structured with verified deletion and penalty clause

How does the process work in Polish courts?

Polish district courts (sądy okręgowe) have exclusive jurisdiction over ZNKU claims. The Warsaw Commercial Court handles a significant share of IP and trade secret disputes nationally. Interim measures are available on an ex parte basis – meaning the court can act without notifying the defendant – when there is a risk of irreversible harm. That risk must be documented, not merely asserted.

The evidentiary standard for a trade secret claim under ZNKU requires three elements. First, the information must have commercial value. Second, it must not be generally known. Third, the holder must have taken reasonable steps to maintain confidentiality. The third element is where most claimants fail. Generic employment clauses rarely satisfy it. Courts expect documented classification policies, access controls, and employee training records.

For foreign investors, the Urząd Patentowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Polish Patent Office, UPRP) does not register trade secrets – unlike trademarks or patents. Protection is entirely conduct-based. This matters for companies operating across multiple jurisdictions: what qualifies as a reasonable step in Germany or Switzerland may need supplementing under Polish standards. Our work on IP protection strategy for Switzerland tech companies in Poland addresses this gap directly.

GDPR Poland compliance intersects with trade secret claims when the disputed information includes personal data of clients or employees. Disclosure in proceedings must be managed carefully to avoid secondary liability under data protection rules. We coordinate with data protection counsel on every matter involving such overlap.

What transferable lessons apply to your business?

The single most common reason trade secret claims fail is not the absence of a secret – it is the absence of proof that the holder treated it as one. Courts apply an objective test. Saying information is confidential is not enough. Showing it was classified, access-restricted, and covered by signed agreements is what counts.

We obtained interim protection for a technology client in Lower Silesia whose trade secret claim succeeded solely because their IT team had maintained a documented access-log policy since 2022 (winter 2025). The competitor's counsel conceded the confidentiality element at the first hearing. That concession saved twelve months of litigation.

Three practical steps reduce exposure materially. First, classify information formally – assign categories and restrict access by role. Second, use specific confidentiality agreements, not boilerplate employment clauses. Third, preserve digital evidence systematically: server logs, access records, and download histories should be retained for at least three years. These steps also support compliance programmes under the AI Act Poland framework, where algorithmic model protection is an emerging concern.

What to prepare before a dispute arises:

  • Written classification policy identifying categories of secret information
  • Role-based access controls with documented approval records
  • Signed confidentiality agreements for all employees with relevant access
  • Retention policy for server logs and download histories (minimum three years)
  • Response protocol for suspected breach, including legal notification within 48 hours

For businesses with significant IP assets, DORA compliance and broader technology governance frameworks can be structured to reinforce trade secret protection simultaneously. Asset registers required under financial regulation often overlap with the classification policies courts expect in ZNKU proceedings. Similarly, companies structuring asset holdings through a family foundation in Poland should ensure IP assets held within the foundation are covered by the same confidentiality architecture.

Cross-border data flows add another layer. When trade secret material is stored on servers outside Poland or shared with foreign subsidiaries, the legal framework governing that transfer affects both the enforceability of the secrecy claim and the remedies available. Our analysis of data transfer from Poland to Switzerland: legal mechanisms is directly relevant for clients operating in that corridor.

The IP lawyer Warsaw market is competitive, but the differentiator in trade secret work is speed and evidence preservation – not courtroom eloquence. A claim filed three months after discovery, without preserved logs, is materially weaker than one filed within two weeks with a forensic audit. Time forfeits options that money cannot recover.

To discuss how trade secret protection applies to your company's situation, email info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does a Polish trade secret case typically take to resolve?

A: Interim measures can be obtained within days of filing if evidence is strong. Full merits proceedings before a district court typically take twelve to twenty-four months. Settlement, which is common once interim measures are in place, often concludes within three to six months of filing. Parallel criminal proceedings can accelerate settlement pressure significantly.

Q: Does a generic confidentiality clause in an employment contract protect trade secrets under Polish law?

A: This is a common misconception. A generic clause helps establish intent but rarely satisfies the ZNKU requirement that the holder took reasonable steps to maintain confidentiality. Courts expect documented classification policies, role-based access controls, and evidence that employees understood which specific information was covered. Boilerplate language alone has been held insufficient in multiple district court decisions.

Q: What is the cost of bringing a trade secret claim in Poland?

A: Court filing fees for civil claims are calculated as a percentage of the claimed amount, subject to a statutory ceiling. For an interim measures application, fees are lower. Legal costs depend on complexity and whether the matter settles or proceeds to full trial. Clients should budget for forensic IT support alongside legal fees, as digital evidence analysis is typically necessary in misappropriation cases.

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 and technology law, trade secret protection, and digital compliance. 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.