Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement
Sponsored content

Polish IP courts: promising signs but room for development

Sponsored by


Piotr Dynowski and Andrzej Stelmachowski of Bird & Bird conduct a progress report on the Polish intellectual property courts since their introduction in 2020 and take a glimpse into their future

July 1 2022 marked the second anniversary of the introduction of intellectual property (IP) courts in Poland. This raises the questions of what has changed and what developments can we expect in the future.

What are the IP courts?

On July 1 2020, five specialised IP courts based in Warsaw, Poznań, Gdańsk, Katowice, and Lublin started operating in Poland. They have exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases regarding trademarks, designs, copyrights, trade secrets, and unfair competition claims. Furthermore, the court in Warsaw has exclusive competence to hear cases regarding technical matters, especially patent infringement proceedings. Appeals in IP cases are heard by divisions of two courts of appeal, in Warsaw and Poznań.

The newly established courts came with a broader legislative change, which introduced specialised provisions regarding the litigation of IP cases in Poland, including new measures regarding requests for preliminary injunction. New judges have also been appointed to hear the matters. Of course, all these changes have had a significant impact on the case law and practical approach towards the recognition of IP matters.

According to the official data provided by the courts, the Warsaw IP court receives the largest number of cases per year – more than 1,000 – and the regional courts a few hundred each. The predominant number of proceedings concern the payment of remuneration for non-contractual use of IP rights; in particular, copyright.

Uniform practice or a different approach?

It is clearly noticeable that after two years a unified practice has not yet been established among the IP courts in Poland. For example, some courts are more willing to hear requests for imposing preliminary injunctions based on ex parte proceedings (Lublin), while others prefer to inform the infringer about the initiation of such an action and invite them to file a statement of defence (Warsaw).

There are also significant differences regarding the courts’ approach towards so-called protective letters, which are not recognised and/or provided for by Polish law. The IP court in Katowice takes them into consideration when deciding a matter, without even informing the claimant about it being filed by an alleged infringer, and as opposed to, for example, the IP court in Warsaw, which invites the claimant to provide its comments on the letter. On the other hand, the IP court in Lublin returns the letters to the defendants.

Litigants wishing to initiate legal proceedings must therefore be prepared to navigate through the nuances of IP litigation in Poland.

What can be expected in the future?

In the overall assessment of practitioners, the decision to establish specialised IP courts was a step in the right direction that will promote the professionalisation of the relevant courts and their judges, and, as a consequence, contribute to a higher quality of case law.

Also, with an increase in the number of decisions, including those issued in appellate proceedings, the practice of IP courts in Poland can be expected to stabilise, to the benefit of entities willing to enforce their IP rights in Poland.

The IP courts in Poland are also becoming increasingly open to applying novel procedural solutions introduced to Polish law in parallel with the establishment of IP courts, such as:

  • Scheduling pre-trial hearings;

  • Drawing up trial plans; or

  • Requesting the alleged infringers to disclose or produce evidence regarding the goods at issue.

Applying these solutions improves the quality and transparency of the proceedings and, consequently, their effectiveness. Further developments in the judicial practice of IP courts in Poland are therefore eagerly awaited.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Patient groups and generics makers may have to bear the brunt of India’s latest attempt at patent reform
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
Paolo Tavolato, who will share the role, said private equity support would help the IP consultancy achieve its ambitious M&A plans
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas has hired former Anand & Anand partner Swati Sharma and hopes to compete with specialist IP firms
Rapporteur-Judge András Kupecz ruled that education and training weren’t legitimate reasons for a member of the public to access documents
Searches for comparison prior art will be a little easier, but practitioners will have to put more thought into claim construction and design patent titles
The Helsinki local division rejected AIM Sport’s request for a preliminary injunction in a dispute with rival Supponor
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The FTC’s plans to scrutinise improperly listed Orange Book patents could make these listings more important in litigation, but firms should be looking at this anyway
Counsel at Debevoise & Plimpton explain how they helped food delivery business Grubhub avoid a preliminary injunction at the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit