UPC Mediation and Arbitration Centre: PMAC Launches June 2026
The Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) opens June 2, 2026 in Lisbon and Ljubljana. What patent holders need to know now.
PMAC: Why the New UPC Centre Will Fundamentally Change Patent Disputes
On June 2, 2026, the Unified Patent Court's Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) opens its doors at two locations: Lisbon and Ljubljana. What might look like an administrative footnote is actually a strategic expansion of the European patent system that will reshape how patent disputes are resolved.
For patent holders, law firms, and companies with European patent portfolios, understanding PMAC's capabilities now - before the first mediation request is filed - is essential.
What PMAC Actually Offers
PMAC is not a generic dispute resolution service. It provides four distinct procedure types, each tailored to the needs of patent practice:
Mediation - a confidential process where a neutral mediator guides the parties toward a mutually agreed solution. Unlike court proceedings, each party retains full control over the outcome. The mediator does not render a decision but facilitates negotiation.
Arbitration - a binding process resembling court proceedings, but conducted privately and confidentially. The arbitral tribunal renders a final decision that is binding on both parties.
Med-Arb Hybrid - a combination of mediation and arbitration. The parties begin with mediation. If that fails, the process transitions seamlessly into arbitration. This model combines mediation's flexibility with the certainty of a binding decision.
Expert Determinations - for technical disputes requiring specialist assessment without a full adversarial proceeding. Particularly relevant for questions of technical equivalence or FRAND valuation.
Critically, PMAC employs mediators and arbitrators with demonstrated expertise in patent law and relevant technical fields. Qualification requirements align with the standards of the UPC itself.
UPC-Wide Enforceability: The Decisive Advantage
The strongest argument for PMAC lies in Article 82 of the UPC Agreement: settlements reached through PMAC can be declared enforceable by the UPC. In practical terms, this means a PMAC settlement carries the same enforcement power as a UPC judgment - effective across all participating member states.
For patent holders, this is a paradigm shift. Previously, settlements often had to be implemented separately in each country, subject to varying legal requirements and uncertainties. A PMAC settlement, by contrast, operates automatically across the currently 17 participating states.
This mechanism substantially reduces transaction costs. Instead of parallel proceedings across multiple jurisdictions, a single PMAC process can achieve a Europe-wide resolution.
Strategic Implications for Patent Holders
PMAC's launch creates new strategic options that go well beyond simple cost savings.
Confidentiality as a business advantage: UPC proceedings are fundamentally public. Judgments are published, hearings are accessible. PMAC proceedings are confidential. For companies that want to keep licence terms, market strategies, or technical details private, this is a significant advantage.
Preserving relationships in the value chain: Patent disputes between suppliers and customers, licensors and licensees, or co-developers are rarely purely legal affairs. The business relationship is at stake. Mediation enables solutions that go beyond a court's binary judgment - adjusted licence terms, cross-licensing arrangements, or staggered payment models.
Speed advantage: While UPC main proceedings take 12-18 months, PMAC mediations typically conclude in 3-6 months. Arbitrations in 6-12 months. In an industry where product lifecycles are shortening, every month counts.
Parallel strategy: PMAC proceedings can be initiated alongside or instead of UPC proceedings. Parties can request a stay of UPC proceedings to attempt mediation, returning to litigation if mediation fails. This flexibility enables multi-stage escalation strategies.
PMAC vs. Traditional UPC Litigation: When Each Makes Sense
The choice between PMAC and a UPC action depends on several factors.
PMAC is preferable when:
- Both parties are fundamentally willing to negotiate
- The business relationship should be preserved
- Confidentiality matters
- Creative solutions beyond injunctions and damages are desired
- Time pressure exists and a fast resolution is preferred
- FRAND licensing disputes involve complex valuation questions
UPC litigation remains better when:
- A party is uncooperative or unwilling to negotiate
- Preliminary injunctive relief is needed (PMAC does not offer interim measures)
- A precedent-setting judgment is the goal
- Infringement is clear-cut and a swift judgment is likely
- The opposing party only responds to judicial pressure
In practice, a combination will often prove most effective: file a UPC action to signal urgency while simultaneously proposing PMAC mediation. Many UPC judges will likely point parties toward PMAC in any event, particularly in cases suited to amicable resolution.
Comparison with Existing Alternatives
PMAC does not enter a vacuum. Established institutions like the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, the ICC, and national arbitration bodies already exist. What distinguishes PMAC is its direct integration with the UPC system.
While a WIPO arbitral award must be enforced separately in each country - under the 1958 New York Convention with its country-specific nuances - PMAC offers unified enforcement through the UPC mechanism. No exequatur proceedings, no separate recognition in each jurisdiction.
That said, the choice of institution remains a strategic decision. For disputes extending beyond UPC member states - global portfolio disputes involving US and Asian patents, for example - the WIPO center or ICC will remain the better option. PMAC is optimised for UPC-specific disputes, not designed as a universal instrument.
Cost Considerations
While PMAC's detailed fee schedule is expected to be published closer to the opening date, the structural cost advantages are already clear.
UPC main proceedings typically involve court fees of EUR 11,000-220,000 depending on the value in dispute, plus legal representation costs that routinely reach six or seven figures. PMAC mediation costs will be substantially lower, primarily comprising mediator fees and administrative charges.
More importantly, the indirect costs are where PMAC delivers the greatest savings. Reduced management time, shorter proceeding duration, and the avoidance of public disclosure all carry significant economic value that rarely appears in a direct cost comparison.
For SMEs in particular, PMAC could be transformative. The cost of UPC litigation has been a legitimate barrier for smaller patent holders. Mediation at a fraction of the cost, with the same UPC-wide enforceability, fundamentally changes the calculus.
Practical Preparation: What to Do Now
Firms and companies should prepare for PMAC now, even before its June 2, 2026 launch.
First: review existing dispute resolution clauses in licence agreements and IP contracts. Those wishing to include PMAC as an option should update their contractual language accordingly. Model clauses are expected from the UPC itself.
Second: rethink negotiation strategy. PMAC mediation requires different skills than litigation. Patent attorneys who have worked exclusively in adversarial settings should actively develop their negotiation competence.
Third: update cost projections. PMAC proceedings have their own fee structures, distinct from UPC litigation costs. In many cases, total costs will be significantly lower, but blanket statements are not possible.
Conclusion
PMAC is not a footnote in the UPC system - it is a strategic expansion that substantially broadens the dispute resolution spectrum in European patent law. The combination of confidentiality, flexibility, and UPC-wide enforceability makes it a serious instrument that should feature in every patent strategy.
Those who are prepared on June 2, 2026 will have an advantage. Those who ignore PMAC are leaving options on the table.