Patent holders of European patents and supplementary protection certificates now have a new option for dispute resolution in patent matters: On June 2, 2026, the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC), based in Ljubljana and Lisbon, formally opened. Three years after the successful launch of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), the PMAC is added to its framework. The PMAC aims to resolve patent disputes outside of court proceedings in an efficient, flexible, and confidential manner, and could become an interesting alternative to litigation, particularly in FRAND disputes.
1. Legal basis
The PMAC is integrated into the UPC’s regulatory framework as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) body. The legal basis for the PMAC is set forth in particular in the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) and in the Rules of Procedure of the UPC (RoP). In addition, on April 24, 2026, the PMAC adopted two detailed sets of rules: the Arbitration Rules and the Mediation Rules.
The PMAC also publishes a list of mediators and arbitrators from which the parties may choose. Currently, suitable mediators and arbitrators are selected based on previously published selection criteria and codes of conduct.
2. Competence
The PMAC serves as the body for mediation and arbitration proceedings in patent disputes falling within the material scope of the UPCA. The PMAC’s jurisdiction thus covers (a) European patents with unitary effect, (b) supplementary protection certificates (SPCs), (c) European patents that had not yet expired as of June 1, 2023, or that were granted thereafter, and (d) European patent applications that were pending as of June 1, 2023, or that were filed thereafter.
However, the PMAC’s jurisdiction is not limited to that of the UPC (or to actions already pending). Rather, for reasons of efficiency, it also covers “Related Disputes.” This refers to intellectual property disputes or commercial disputes in which there is a factual, legal, or commercial nexus with an actual or contemplated dispute concerning a European patent, a European patent with unitary effect, or a supplementary protection certificate for which the UPC is fully or partially competent. Subject to this reservation, the PMAC may thus also deal with global patent portfolios and resolve corresponding disputes, such as those that arise in the context of standard-essential patents (SEPs).
However, the PMAC lacks the authority to revoke or limit the patents and patent applications in dispute. From an efficiency standpoint, however, there are strong arguments in favor of the view that only decisions on the validity of the patent with direct erga omnes effect are excluded from the PMAC’s jurisdiction, whilst the PMAC remains free to deal with questions of validity with inter partes effect.
3. Procedure
The procedural rules of the UPC and the PMAC are closely intertwined. For example, in the interim procedure before the UPC, the judge-rapporteur is required to explore the possibilities of a settlement through arbitration and/or mediation proceedings using the PMAC. If the subject matter of the dispute is suitable, this applies at every stage of the proceedings before the UPC.
3.1 Mediation
Mediation proceedings are conducted using appropriate electronic information and communication means, unless the parties agree otherwise. The parties may agree on the location of any necessary in-person meetings; otherwise, the PMAC decides after consulting with the parties and the mediator. The language of the mediation is determined by agreement of the parties or, failing that, by the PMAC.
In the mediation, the parties first agree on a mediator (or multiple mediators). The mediator facilitates communication, identifies the parties’ interests, and may propose solutions. However, the mediator is not authorized to impose settlements or obligations on the parties. The proceedings must be conducted in good faith and with the aim of reaching a prompt resolution. As a rule, mediation should be concluded within three months of the mediator’s appointment. Any extensions require the consent of all parties and the PMAC. After twelve months, the PMAC may terminate the proceedings after consulting with the mediator and the parties. The parties may also agree to expedited proceedings.
The mediator may also suggest other forms of ADR to the parties in order to find an efficient, cost-effective, and productive solution. For example, the mediator may suggest obtaining an expert determination on specific points of dispute, an early neutral evaluation, or a hybrid mediation-arbitration procedure that incorporates elements of both arbitration and mediation (“Med-Arb” procedure). The mediation process ends either with the conclusion of a settlement agreement, upon the expiration of time limits, or by a declaration from the mediator or a party.
3.2 Arbitration
Arbitration proceedings can be structured flexibly with regard to the language to be used and the seat of arbitration. They are, moreover, more formal than mediation proceedings and include inter alia an initial case management conference, procedural deadlines, and an award that is binding on the parties unless they have agreed otherwise.
A sole arbitrator or three arbitrators are appointed to the arbitral tribunal. Once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, an initial case management conference is convened as soon as possible to establish the preliminary schedule and to clarify preliminary issues such as objections to jurisdiction, interim relief, the submission of documents, or the number of expert witnesses. Additional procedural conferences may be convened as needed.
The award shall generally be rendered within one year of the commencement of the proceedings. The hearings are held in camera, although the arbitral tribunal may adopt additional rules to protect the confidential information of the parties and third parties. Unless otherwise agreed, the hearings shall be conducted via videoconference.
In principle, a final award is rendered, which can be enforced like a court judgment. Arbitration proceedings are also subject to more stringent confidentiality rules than court proceedings.
4. Enforcement
Settlements reached with the involvement of the PMAC are immediately enforceable in all UPCA member states. Beyond the territorial scope of the UPCA, an arbitral award is subject to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. If the parties reach an agreement through mediation, its cross-border recognition may be facilitated by the Singapore Convention on Mediation.
5. Practical impact
From a practical perspective, it is very welcome that the UPC litigation procedure has been supplemented by the PMAC as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Everything points to the PMAC gaining significant practical importance. This is because, particularly in complex patent disputes, it may be advisable to resort to the alternative dispute resolution procedures at the PMAC as an alternative to or in parallel with the UPC litigation proceedings (“shadow option”). Thus, with this set-up, ADR proceedings before the PMAC will not cause delay for parallel UPC proceedings. Furthermore, referring specific issues to arbitration and/or mediation at the PMAC may be appropriate in disputes involving numerous parties and/or cross-border issues. This approach can prevent UPC proceedings being subject to a strict time regime from becoming overburdened with complex procedural or substantive issues. The extent to which the PMAC will also serve as a platform for license negotiations in FRAND disputes in the future remains to be seen. Both the mediation rules and the arbitration rules address this topic only partially and otherwise refer to non-binding guidelines for handling FRAND disputes, which are still pending.
The fact that a close link between judicial and extrajudicial proceedings can lead to lasting success is demonstrated by the mediation proceedings offered by the Regional Court of Munich I, which are, as experience shows, successful in well over 50% of the cases conducted. However, experience shows that alternative dispute resolution only leads to success once the case has been fully presented and the arguments have been exchanged. The stage of the interim proceedings provided for in the UPC’s RoP is, in this respect, an appropriate time to initiate alternative dispute resolution at the PMAC in parallel with the proceedings before the UPC (this does not, of course, preclude taking earlier steps in suitable cases). It will be interesting to see whether a refusal of one of the parties to the UPC dispute to engage in ADR before the PMAC will become relevant for FRAND-willingness considerations. It is, however, rather likely that such refusal will play a role in the holistic determination of “willingness”.
