The Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC), provided for by Article 35 UPCA, has ceased to be an institutional promise. Its mediation and arbitration rules are published, its seats in Ljubljana and Lisbon are open, and the UPC now has an amicable settlement arm embedded in its architecture. The real question remains: how does this framework fare when tested against the disputes that need it most, FRAND disputes?
The PMAC Rules can only be read properly through the lens of those disputes. FRAND license disputes concentrate everything thatarbitration promises: a single tribunal with worldwide reach, technical and economic expertise, an award enforceable under the New York Convention.
The tension structuring the analysis is simple: PMAC will be either a carefully worked procedural instrument or a slogan. Everything depends on how counsel take hold of it.
A distinct procedural product
Arbitration is not mediation brought to completion: it is a distinct procedural product, private, specialised and enforceable decisions rendered by arbitrators chosen for their expertise. English case law has just consecrated its legitimacy in FRAND matters: in Acer v Nokia, the Court of Appeal held RAND an interim licence offer coupled with final determination by arbitration.
Could the UPC, in turn, give procedural recognition to a serious PMAC arbitration proposal in an appropriate FRAND case? Possibly, but with caution. A bare invitation to arbitrate should not make one party willing and the other recalcitrant; on the other hand, the refusal of a concrete, balanced and tailored proposal may become relevant to the assessment of the parties' conduct, as the Nokia case shows, where the implementers had raised no substantive objection to the proposed mechanism.
A UPC-facing process
The PMAC Arbitration Rules are written for disputes that often have a counterpart before the UPC. They organise several entry doors: information sessions, informing parties already in proceedings about amicable options, express interaction between the Centre and the Court where both parties jointly request a stay. The Request and the Answer force the parties to define the dispute early; the constitution of the tribunal rests on independence, impartiality and disclosure obligations; case management remains deliberately flexible (seat, language, timetable, submissions, witnesses, experts, document production, hearings).
Two blocks deserve the FRAND practitioner's attention. Articles 48 to 50 turn arbitration into a toolkit: delimiting the scope of the dispute, addressing essentiality, selected terms only or royalties, coordinating with parallel proceedings. Article 36 creates the institutional bridge: parties may seek UPC confirmation of consent awards and settlements, giving the PMAC product reinforced enforcement across the unitary patent space. The evidence and confidentiality architecture, finally, protects comparable licences through restricted access regimes, the nerve centre of any dispute over standard essential patents.
A centre now open
The facts are settled as matters stand. The mediation and arbitration rules were adopted in spring 2026 and are published, in three languages, on the official PMAC website. Mediation services opened on 12 May 2026 and the Centre was inaugurated on 2 June 2026 in Ljubljana, its two seats being Ljubljana and Lisbon, as stated on the dedicated page of the Unified Patent Court.
The operational timetable is gradual: mediation is running, while arbitration and expert determination are being rolled out in the course of 2026. The Mannheim Local Division has already proposed mediation under PMAC auspices in Samsung v ZTE, a sign that the Court itself intends to give life to Article 35.
The cost question
UPC litigation is expensive: since 1 January 2026, fixed fees stand at 14,600 euros for an infringement action or a declaration of non-infringement and 26,500 euros for a revocation action. PMAC is not free: registration fees of 3,000 to 8,000 euros depending on the amount in dispute, arbitrator fees generally between 350 and 750 euros per hour, expedited arbitration at 350 euros per hour capped at 40,000 euros.
The economic advantage lies not in the label but in the architecture: narrowing the issues, a sole arbitrator where appropriate, online hearings, expert determination. An access concern remains: if PMAC served only large portfolios and high-value disputes, it would succeed without realising its potential. Framed and capped tracks for SMEs, model protocols and early neutral evaluation are the natural remedy.
Privatising justice?
The objection of principle deserves better than a counter-slogan. Arbitration and mediation do not undermine public justice merely because they are private; and PMAC is no ordinary private arbitration: created by the UPCA, it operates within the institutional architecture of the UPC. Article 35 draws a clear line: a patent may not be revoked or limited in these proceedings. The Court's Rules of Procedure do, however, allow confirmation of settlements containing the patentee's undertaking to limit or surrender its title.
The real risk lies elsewhere: patent law develops through public decisions, and the UPC's legitimacy depends on building a coherent body of case law. If too many structuring disputes disappeared into confidential settlement, public law would lose its raw material. The right framing does not oppose public and private justice; it distinguishes the questions that require public adjudication from those calling for a reliable, confidential and enforceable inter partes mechanism. Anonymised publication of awards, reasoned summaries and judicial confirmation of settlements keep the balance; the PMAC Rules already provide for anonymised publication unless a party objects.
From symbolism to practice
PMAC will succeed if counsel do not use it as window dressing. It demands precise procedural work: a careful arbitration clause, a delimited scope of referral, a workable information protocol, a confidentiality structure, cost modelling, and the articulation of any award with proceedings pending before the UPC. That work is what separates a strategy ofpatent arbitration and mediation from an incantation.
For FRAND disputes, the Centre completes a deeper movement: the contractual characterisation of the undertaking, from which the UK Supreme Court has just drawn the consequences in Tesla v InterDigital on patent pools, makes arbitration a natural mode of performing the obligation, as set out in our analysis of the prior question of standard essential patents. PMAC is not one more institution; it is a new instrument of European patent strategy.
Key takeaways
- PMAC, created by Article 35 UPCA, is open: mediation since 12 May 2026, inauguration on 2 June 2026, seats in Ljubljana and Lisbon.
- Its mediation and arbitration rules, published in 2026, expressly address FRAND disputes (Articles 48 to 50 of the Arbitration Rules).
- Article 36 allows consent awards and settlements to be confirmed by the UPC, securing reinforced enforcement.
- Costs can be controlled through procedural architecture: narrowed scope, sole arbitrator, online hearings, capped expedited arbitration.
- Article 35 prohibits revoking or limiting a patent through the amicable route; transparency rests on anonymised publication and judicial confirmation.
- PMAC's value will depend on counsel's procedural work: clause, scope, confidentiality, articulation with the UPC.
Frequently asked questions
Is PMAC operational today?
Yes for mediation, open since 12 May 2026, the Centre having been inaugurated on 2 June 2026. Arbitration and expert determination are being rolled out gradually in the course of 2026; the rules are published on the Centre's official website.
Can a PMAC arbitration revoke a patent?
No. Article 35 UPCA excludes revocation and limitation of the patent in these proceedings. A settlement may, however, contain the patentee's undertaking to limit or surrender its title, subject to UPC confirmation.
Why choose PMAC over the ICC or WIPO for a FRAND dispute?
No institution prevails as a matter of principle. PMAC offers patent specialisation, express FRAND provisions and the bridge to the UPC (coordinated stays, confirmation of consent awards); the ICC and WIPO keep their own strengths. The choice turns on the procedural architecture of the dispute.
What does a PMAC procedure cost?
Registration fees range from 3,000 to 8,000 euros depending on the amount in dispute; arbitrator fees generally run between 350 and 750 euros per hour, with expedited arbitration capped at 40,000 euros. The relevant comparison is the full cost of UPC litigation fought to the end.
The firm advises clients on the opportunity and conduct of amicable and arbitral patent proceedings, in particular in FRAND undertaking disputes and through its practice asFRAND and standard essential patents counsel ; Matthieu Dhenne is also an accredited mediator with PMAC. Talk to us.
This article is an original and substantially updated adaptation of an analysis by Matthieu Dhenne first published on Kluwer Patent Blog on June 24, 2026: Designing Patent ADR: The PMAC Rules Through the Lens of FRAND.