Under the Act of 13 February 2020 amending the Act – Code of Civil Procedure and certain other acts (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 288), courts were established as of 1 July 2020 to deal exclusively with matters related to intellectual property law. The Polish Chamber of Patent Attorneys, as well as entrepreneurs, creators, persons entitled to exclusive rights and scientific communities have been calling for the establishment of courts dealing with the protection of industrial property for many years, pointing out the complex nature of these matters, the need for them to be resolved by specialist judges and the significance of judgments issued in these matters.

Until now, cases concerning infringement of patents, trademark protection rights or industrial design registration rights were heard by common courts. An exception was the 22nd Division for EU Trademarks and Community Designs of the District Court in Warsaw, which was established specifically to adjudicate on European Union trademarks and Community designs. In turn, the only body competent to invalidate exclusive national rights was the Polish Patent Office, while the control of its decisions was exercised by the Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw.

The new regulation provides for the creation of special divisions, which will be established in five district courts and two appellate courts. Under the implementing regulations of the Minister of Justice of 29 June 2020, the following district courts have been designated as competent to hear cases concerning the protection of EU trademarks and Community designs (EU trademark and Community design courts) and cases concerning intellectual property: the District Court in Gdańsk, the District Court in Katowice, the District Court in Lublin, the District Court in Poznań and the District Court in Warsaw. At the appellate level, intellectual property cases will be heard by: the Court of Appeal in Warsaw and the Court of Appeal in Poznań. Judges trained in intellectual property rights, industrial property rights and combating unfair competition will be appointed to adjudicate in these courts.

The above provisions mean a significant change in the system of adjudicating cases in the field of intellectual property rights. Firstly, cases concerning EU trademarks and Community designs will no longer be exclusively heard by the District Court in Warsaw (Chair XXII). Article 123 paragraph 1 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trademark authorises Member States to designate several national courts and tribunals on their territory acting as courts of first and second instance, which has been done. An analogous regulation can be found in the Regulation on the Community design. Secondly, the designated District Courts will be authorised to rule on the invalidation or declaration of the expiry of the right of protection for a trademark and the invalidation of the right from the registration of an industrial design as a result of a counterclaim. The District Courts in Gdańsk, Poznań, Katowice and Lublin will also be able to rule on the validity of EU trademarks and Community designs granted by the European Union Intellectual Property Office. Thus, the District Courts will examine the grounds for invalidity and revocation of rights to trademarks and industrial designs. Thirdly, in accordance with Article 479 90 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the District Court in Warsaw has exclusive jurisdiction in intellectual property matters concerning computer programs, inventions, utility models, integrated circuit topography, plant varieties and technical trade secrets. It was therefore considered that the above catalogue concerns matters so complex that it requires the establishment of a single, specialized court. Matters of invalidation of patents for inventions were left to the exclusive competence of the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland.

According to the Act, intellectual property matters include matters concerning the protection of copyright and related rights, as well as matters relating to inventions, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, geographical indications, topographies of integrated circuits, matters relating to the prevention and combating of unfair competition, matters relating to the protection of personal rights in the scope in which it concerns the use of personal rights for the purpose of individualisation, advertising or promotion of an entrepreneur, goods or services, matters relating to the protection of personal rights in connection with scientific or inventive activities.

The Act also introduces mandatory representation by professional attorneys. This will be the third case of mandatory representation of a party by a professional attorney – in addition to proceedings before the Supreme Court and proceedings based on the provisions of the Act of 17 December 2009 on pursuing claims in group proceedings (see Article 4, paragraph 4 of the aforementioned Act).

The legislator granted attorneys, legal advisers and patent attorneys the right to represent parties in all intellectual property matters. As indicated in the justification for the project, “this is related to the multiplication of possible protection bases, which is characteristic of intellectual property rights. This means that, for example, a trademark – if it also meets the criteria of a work – will be protected both under the provisions of the Act of 30 June 2002 – Industrial Property Law [hereinafter: “pwp”] (as a trademark) and the Act of 4 February 1994 on Copyright and Related Rights [hereinafter: “upapp”] (as a work). Similarly, in the case of, for example, imitation of a product, protection may be implemented under the Act of 4 February 1994 on Copyright and Related Rights (if copyright infringement has occurred) and under the provisions of the Act of 16 April 1993 on Combating Unfair Competition. Such frequently occurring situations lead to the blurring of the boundary between different categories of protection.”

The Act also granted patent attorneys the right to represent parties in copyright matters.

The Act also introduces a second special action, i.e. an action for determination. The purpose of this institution is to determine that specific actions do not infringe a specific patent, additional protection right, protection right or registration right. “The proposed solution is to prevent incurring often high costs preceding the investment process, which may prove useless at a later stage in a situation where a given activity would infringe a specific patent, additional protection right, protection right or registration right. The draft provision does not exclude the general principles regarding counterclaims, provided for in Article 189 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but only supplements them. The intention of the draft is to determine that in cases such as those specified in the draft provision there is a legal interest in filing a lawsuit. At the same time – it should be emphasized that the operative part of the judgment will be decisive for determining to what extent the specified actions of the plaintiff do not infringe the exclusive rights of the defendant. At the same time, cases for determining the existence or non-existence of copyright or related rights – based on Article 189 of the Code of Civil Procedure – are also intellectual property matters.” (Justification for the draft Act of amending the Act – Code of Civil Procedure and certain other acts).