The Unified Patent Court’s Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre, or PMAC, was formally launched on 2 June 2026. Established under Article 35 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (“UPC”), the PMAC is intended to be the UPC’s own alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) body with statutory seats in Ljubljana and Lisbon. [1]
It aims to provide patent owners, implementers and alleged infringers a specialist forum in which technically complex and commercially sensitive disputes can be mediated and arbitrated. For the European patent market, this could be a new procedural layer that may influence litigation strategy and settlement leverage.
What the PMAC offers
The PMAC offers institutional support and frameworks for mediation and arbitration, and expert determination, with an intention of providing a faster, more flexible, and cost-effective process in comparison to traditional patent litigation.
For both mediation and arbitration, the Centre offers an ADR information conference, where parties can consult a “PMAC-accredited expert” free of charge. Given the technical complexity of patent disputes, this preliminary consultation could help claimants understand their cases better, as well as understand the available procedural options before deciding how to proceed. The process then differs depending on whether the parties choose mediation or arbitration.
Under the PMAC’s mediation procedure, a party first submits a request outlining the dispute and desired outcomes. The respondent has 15 days to respond, after which a neutral mediator is selected from the PMAC’s list or by agreement between the parties. The mediator then facilitates structured settlement discussions, and any agreement reached is documented and signed, and if necessary, made legally binding.[2]
Arbitration follows a more formal procedure. Following the consultation, if the claimant decides to proceed with arbitration, they must file an arbitration request. The respondent then has 30 days to respond, after which the parties establish the procedural timetable for submissions, evidence and any hearings before the arbitrator(s) issue an award. Similarly, the parties can select arbitrators from the PMAC neutral arbitrators or appoint their own selected experts to form the tribunal.[3]
Settlements reached through PMAC mediation can be confirmed by the UPC as court decisions, giving them binding effect across its Contracting Member States, while arbitral awards could be enforced internationally under the New York Convention.
An early neutral evaluation service, which should help parties understand the strength and weaknesses of their cases, is also expected to launch as an additional service within the PMAC in 2027.
The Centre also has a focus on Standard Essential Patents (“SEPs”) and fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) licensing disputes. These types of cases often involve commercial controversy concerning portfolio access, licence scope, royalty rate-setting and negotiating conduct.[4]
The PMAC’s Approach to SEP/FRAND Disputes
Its dedicated FRAND provisions distinguish it from other ADR providers and may enhance its appeal for international SEP/FRAND disputes. The process begins with the filing of an arbitration request, either jointly or unilaterally, under the PMAC Rules of Arbitration. The parties may submit an arbitration agreement in the form of an arbitration clause or a separate contract and may also elect to apply the Guidelines for FRAND Disputes under Article 48 of the Rules.
The parties can agree on the number of arbitrators, the language of the proceedings, the applicable law and the seat of arbitration, with the PMAC facilitating appointments where necessary. It may also define the scope of the dispute, including the patents in question, licensing terms and royalty calculations. The tribunal then establishes the procedural timetable for submissions, evidence and any hearings before issuing an arbitral award.[5] This flexibility may be advantageous in SEP/FRAND disputes, as the economic value often lies in ongoing royalty streams or portfolio-wide licensing arrangements across multiple jurisdictions, rather than damages relating to a single patent and product.
In traditional litigation, it can be difficult to keep licence comparisons and royalty calculations confidential. PMAC procedures can allow parties to advance valuation evidence and negotiate sensitive licence terms without necessarily exposing their broader portfolio strategy to competitors or other potential licensees.
Limitations to watch
The PMAC should not be misunderstood as a substitute for the UPC’s judicial function. Article 35 (2) draws a clear boundary by providing that a patent may not be revoked or limited in mediation or arbitration proceedings, which means that issues requiring a change to the legal status or scope of a patent remain matters for judicial or patent-office mechanisms.[6]
The voluntary nature of mediation and arbitration also matters. A party with a strong litigation position may be reluctant to refer its strongest claims to the PMAC, while an alleged unwilling licensee may rely on procedural delays or separate proceedings to prolong negotiations. Thus, the PMAC’s suitability should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the strength of the legal claim, the other party’s incentives to engage, and the potential commercial benefits of resolving the dispute through ADR.
Finally, the Centre has only been operational for less than 6 months, so its actual resolution times, settlement rates, tribunal practice and enforceability of outcomes will need to be tested and assessed over time before its practical effectiveness can be fully evaluated.
Conclusion
The PMAC appears to be arriving at a useful time. The UPC is becoming more established, and its most immediate value may lie in European patent disputes involving SEP and FRAND cases where the central issue is often the terms on which patented technology should be licensed rather than the right to use that technology itself.
For parties considering either route with constrained capital, funding may provide a means of pursuing meritorious patent disputes before the UPC or through dispute resolution mechanisms in the PMAC.
Written by Porntida Thitaparun
Peer reviewed by Wouter de Jong
Deminor Litigation Funding
[1] Article 35 UPCA provides the statutory foundation for the PMAC. The article establishes the centre and provides facilities for the mediation and arbitration of patent disputes. Its effective operation also requires Rules of Operation adopted by the Administrative Committee under Articles 35 and 11 UPCA, alongside dedicated procedural rules for mediation and arbitration.
[2]Mediation | Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre of the Unified Patent Court (PMAC)
[3] Arbitration | Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre of the Unified Patent Court (PMAC)
[4]SEPs/FRAND Disputes | Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre of the Unified Patent Court (PMAC)
[5] SEPs/FRAND Disputes | Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre of the Unified Patent Court (PMAC)
