Mediation And Expert Determination At PMAC - The UPC's Patent Mediation And Arbitration Centre

The Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has recently published final procedural rules for arbitration, mediation and expert determination. Here we look at PMAC's mediation and expert determination services in more detail. For more information on PMAC's launch and coverage see our recent blog post here, and on the arbitration rules see our post here.

The arbitration and expert determination services will launch in June 2026 but mediation is already on offer (as of 12 May 2026) and the UPC made its first referral of a case to mediation on 13 May in the event that licence terms could not be agreed under a court-determined settlement agreement.

Background 

PMAC is an independent, specialised alternative dispute resolution (ADR) institution established to resolve patent disputes and offering arbitration, mediation and expert determination. The system is designed primarily for disputes involving European patents (EPs) (including unitary patents and supplementary protection certificates (SPCs)) over which the UPC has jurisdiction but there is also provision for "related disputes" to be incorporated involving any sort of intellectual property. ADR and UPC proceedings may continue in parallel. 

PMAC's inauguration is set for 2 June 2026 in Ljubljana (one of its two seats, the other being Lisbon) but mediation services are already in operation, with the first reference to mediation already having been made by the UPC. Arbitration and expert determination services are to follow later in 2026. 

The Arbitration, Mediation and Expert Determination Rules are available on the UPC website and the PMAC website. 

Mediation 

The Mediation Rules incorporate all the procedural elements of modern mediation proceedings as well as a structured framework governing the interaction between the mediation and pending UPC litigation. 

Their scope extends to the settlement of disputes relating to EPs and SPCs for which the UPC is competent, European patents with unitary effect (the UPC has exclusive jurisdiction over these "unitary patents" (UPs), and "related disputes, defined as “disputes involving other patents or patent applications or portfolios of the same, whether or not the patent rights in question are European patents, European patents with unitary effect or supplementary protection certificates or any other intellectual property or commercial disputes, provided that 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 wholly or in part competent” (Article 2.1). In essence, the Mediation Rules may be used where the parties' dispute concerns a patent (or related intellectual property or commercial matter) with a nexus to the UPC.

Particular points of interest in the Mediation Rules include: 

• The availability to the parties of a confidential, free-of-charge ADR information session with an accredited neutral. The purpose of this session is to inform the parties of the ADR options available and, where possible, to agree on an appropriate procedure (Article 4).
• Provisions for expedited mediation proceedings (Article 17). 
• Scope for the mediator to propose alternative procedures where the issues in the dispute do not appear to be susceptible to mediation. These alternatives might include: expert determination; early neutral evaluation; hybrid mediation-arbitration proceedings; or any other appropriate dispute resolution process (Article 18). 
• The availability of a hybrid Mediation-Arbitration (Med-Arb) procedure, whereby the parties can either jointly appoint a “co-mediator” who can assume the role of arbitrator if the parties are unable to reach a settlement on part or all of the mediation, or alternatively jointly appoint a sole arbitrator who will issue an award in respect of just those parts of a dispute which remain unresolved following a mediation (Article 19). While these hybrid processes are subject to party consent and may save costs and encourage settlement in appropriate cases, there is no international consensus on the acceptability of such dual-rule processes. Parties should therefore carefully consider the potential implications of the same individual acting in both a mediatory and adjudicatory capacity, particularly if it might affect the enforceability of any resulting award. 
• A detailed confidentiality regime, reflecting the particular importance of confidentiality in patent disputes. The parties may agree to any of a range of options in this regard, including the appointment of a confidentiality adviser to oversee compliance, restrictions on access to confidential information and separate non-disclosure agreements (Article 25). 
• Dedicated provisions for Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) disputes. A non-exhaustive list is provided of the types of matters that may be raised in mediation in the context of a FRAND dispute (Article 26). Non-binding, best practice guidelines are also to be established by PMAC for FRAND disputes (Article 27). 
• Where a settlement has been reached, the parties can jointly request that this be confirmed by way of a decision of the UPC. This confirmation can include any term which obliges the patent owner to limit, surrender or agree to the revocation of a patent or not to assert it against the other party. The parties may also, with the mediator's consent, appoint the mediator as an arbitrator and request the mediator's confirmation of the settlement agreement in the form of an arbitral award by consent (Article 21).  

Expert Determination

The Expert Determination Rules provide a flexible and specialised mechanism for the resolution of discrete legal, factual or technical issues, whether as a standalone procedure or in conjunction with arbitration or mediation proceedings before PMAC. The Expert Determination Rules include all the procedural elements to be expected of expert determination, as well as dedicated provisions for FRAND and Standard Essential Patent (SEP) disputes.

The scope of the Expert Determination Rules mirrors the Mediation Rules (Article 2 and see also above). The intention is that an expert determination will generally take place in the context of a PMAC arbitration or mediation, although parties may elect to refer discrete legal, factual or technical issues for expert determination without any pending PMAC arbitration or mediation. 

Particular points of interest in the Expert Determination Rules include: 

• As for mediation, the availability to the parties of a confidential, free-of-charge ADR information session with an accredited neutral. The purpose of this session is to inform the parties of the ADR options available and, where possible, to agree on an appropriate procedure (Article 4).
• Outcome of the expert determination may be binding or non-binding, depending on the parties' agreement (Article 2). The parties' position on this is to be made clear in their request for expert determination and response respectively (Articles 7 and 8). 
• With consent of the parties, the expert's determination to be made public. PMAC can also publish an anonymised version of the determination, unless a party objects within sixty days. (Article 19). 
• Dedicated provisions for FRAND and SEP disputes, with determinations able to include an essentiality assessment of one or more claimed SEP(s) and/or an assessment of the FRAND terms, including the royalty rate, relating to a particular SEP or portfolio of SEPs (Article 20). Non-binding, best practice guidelines are also to be established by PMAC for FRAND disputes (Article 21).

Interaction with UPC litigation 

Article 5 of both the Mediation and the Expert Determination Rules provides that parties to UPC litigation will be informed of PMAC’s ADR services and invited to consider ADR as a means of settling their disputes. Parties can also agree to settle their dispute by way of mediation, Med-Arb or expert determination regardless of whether UPC proceedings are pending (Article 5(2)). 

The UPC can order a stay of proceedings pending ADR on the joint request of the parties, in which case PMAC will inform the UPC when ADR proceedings have terminated and, in the case of a mediation, whether they have resulted in a settlement (but without revealing the details of such settlement) (Article 6 of both the Mediation and the Expert Determination Rules). 

Model clauses and model submission agreements 

PMAC has published model dispute resolution clauses and model submission agreements with the aim of further streamlining ADR within the UPC framework. The model clauses may be used in a range of commercial contracts drafted by the parties and the model submission agreements can be drafted as separate, stand‑alone documents.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.