POLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Szymon Gogulski, Marek Oleksyn and Maciej Gil, Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak
This motion for information can pertain to: • the names and addresses of producers, manufac - turers, distributors, suppliers and other previous holders from or for whom goods were purchased or sold, or services were used or provided, as well as expected wholesalers and retailers of these goods or services; • information on the quantity of produced, manu - factured, shipped, received or ordered goods or services rendered, as well as prices received; and • other information necessary to prove the amount of the claim in particularly justified circumstances. The trade secret owner (applicant) must: • show the probability of the circumstances showing the infringement; • set out the scope of information sought; • demonstrate why the addressee has the requested information; and • show that the information is needed to establish the source or value of the infringement. The addressee of the request may respond to the motion within the time set by the court, but not shorter than two weeks. The court’s decision issued in the first instance is enforceable. It can be appealed to the court of appeals. The obligation to provide informa - tion is performed by the addressee (obliged party) in writing or in electronic form. 5.8 Maintaining Secrecy While Litigating The CPC provides some procedural rules aimed at maintaining the secrecy of the trade secrets at issue during litigation while the case is pending. These are summarised below. • Only the litigating parties may view the case files and receive certified copies, copies or excerpts from these files. • At a litigating party’s request, the court orders a closed-door sitting, when trade secrets may be disclosed. In such a case, only the following per - sons may be present in the court room: the parties, the interveners, their statutory representatives and proxies, the prosecutor and persons of trust, two on each side.
On the other hand, while deciding on the motions con - cerning evidence and information (see 5.7 Obtaining Information and Evidence ), the court must take into account the protection of the addressee’s confidential information. This general rule is discussed more pre - cisely in the CPC for each relevant evidence-securing or information-disclosure motion. 5.9 Defending Against Allegations of Misappropriation There are a range of formal and merit defences avail - able in trade secrets litigation that, depending on the case background, may include the following: • the lack of the legal protection of a trade secret due to the lack of – or insufficient – measures adopted by the claimant to maintain confidentiality (see 1.5 Reasonable Measures ); • no infringement due to independent discovery/pro - duction, or to observation, research, disassembly or testing, if the relevant prerequisites set out in the UCL can be shown by the defendant; • no infringement as a result of, for example, the pro - tection of a legitimate interest, or as part of exer - cising freedom of expression or revealing irregulari - ties, misconduct or violations of the law to protect the public interest; • a statute of limitations plea; • in exceptional cases, showing that the claimant’s interest has not been infringed or threatened; and • in specific cases, the claimant’s too-long acquies - cence to the defendant’s unauthorised activities on the market (the venire contra factum proprium plea). 5.10 Dispositive Motions There is no specific “dispositive motion” procedure available in Polish civil procedure. However, in turn, the CPC provides for some procedural measures that, to some extent, perform a similar function to a dis - positive motion. For example: • based on statements and attachments as well as notorious facts and facts known by the court ex officio, if the court perceives the case to be obvi - ously ungrounded, it can dismiss the lawsuit at a closed sitting without even serving the lawsuit on the defendant;
143 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook