As one of the most significant developments in the European patent system in nearly three decades, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has, since becoming operational, emerged as a major forum for cross-border patent disputes. Litigation involving Chinese companies has continued to arise in fields including communications standard?essential patents (SEPs) and clean energy. In this context, the risks posed by patent litigation and injuctions in the Europe have become an important consideration for Chinese companies expanding overseas, as well as fo their compliance and risk management strategies.
The UPC’s Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) recently held its inauguration ceremony in Ljubljana, Slovenia, marking the Centre’s lformal aunch. With the final versions of its key procedural instruments—including the Mediation Rules, Arbitration Rules and Rules on Expert Determination—now published, the PMAC has attracted considerable attention from the global intellectual property community. As the world’s first alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism embedded within a supranational patent court system, the PMAC combines a broad scope of jurisdiction with close integration into UPC litigation proceedings, while ensuring that settlements reached through its procedures enjoy direct enforceability across the EU. These institutional features position the PMAC as a potentially important forum for the resolution of cross-border patent disputes in Europe.
To help Chinese companies and legal professionals better understand the PMAC’s institutional framework, key features of its rules and practical application, IP Economy conducted an exclusive interview with the PMAC. The discussion examines the key changes introduced in the final rules, the Centre’s jurisdiction, its procedures from initiation to resolution, the resolution of FRAND disputes concerning standard- essential patents, and how Chinese companies can make effective use of the PMAC. It also provides practical insights for Chinese companies navigating patent litigation in Europe and strengthening cross?border patent risk management frameworks.
【Interview Questions】
IPE: Compared with earlier drafts for public comments and the trial version for implementation, what are the key revisions and additions in the latest release of PMAC documents? What changes would you consider the most significant innovations or distinguishing features?
PMAC: Some important modifications to the PMAC Rules of Mediation, Rules of Arbitration, and Rules of Expert Determination (“PMAC Rules”) were introduced following the public consultation process, and the subsequent discussion by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Administrative Committee (AC), which is composed of representatives of the governments of the 18 participating EU Member States. The consultations generated strong engagement, resulting in nearly 1,000 high-quality submissions from a broad range of stakeholders representing views from patent implementers as well as owners. Many were incorporated through amendments and reflect a wide spectrum of interests and concerns of key players in the IP industry. This feedback confirmed broad support for the PMAC’s jurisdiction over all patent-related disputes and underlined the practical relevance and demand for the Centre’s future services. Summary of the comments is available here: Statistics | Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre of the Unified Patent Court (PMAC)
The most important improvements to the procedural framework include a clearer definition of the PMAC's broad scope of competence; extending the availability of the free online ADR information session to all disputants, rather than limiting it to UPC litigants; implementing a digital-first approach through the Centre's Case Management System (CCMS); introducing provisions on hybrid med-arb proceedings; strengthening the provisions on confidentiality and transparency in arbitration; and including specific provisions on SEP/FRAND disputes, including a provision authorising the PMAC to adopt non-binding FRAND Guidelines.
To support this work, a dedicated expert working group has been established and has already begun preparing a discussion paper on the FRAND Guidelines, which will be shared with stakeholders worldwide for consultation and feedback. We are also pleased that one of the PMAC's accredited neutrals, a distinguished Chinese expert, is a member of this working group.
IPE: Compared with other patent dispute mediation mechanisms such as those within the EU and the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center framework, what distinguishes PMAC in terms of its role within the UPC system, particularly regarding its jurisdiction and its relationship with court proceedings? What are the expected timelines for proceedings?
PMAC: The PMAC is an integral part of the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) and is regulated by Article 35 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (“UPCA”). In this regard, it is unique as the first ADR centre integrated within a supranational court for patent disputes. As such, it is designed to interact closely with the UPC while also providing an alternative to litigation outside UPC proceedings.
Cases before the PMAC may therefore include disputes arising in pending litigation before the UPC, national courts or national intellectual property offices, including those outside Europe, as well as disputes referred to the PMAC on the basis of dispute resolution clauses or submission agreements. The interaction between the UPC and the PMAC is enshrined in Articles 11 and 365 of the UPC Rules of Procedure (“RoP”). These provisions allow the UPC, at any stage of the proceedings, to refer disputes suitable for mediation or arbitration to the PMAC. They also enable the direct enforcement of mediated settlement agreements and consent awards throughout all UPC Contracting Member States (“CMS”), while arbitral awards may also be enforced pursuant to the New York Convention.
An important distinction between the PMAC and other ADR centres is its scope of competence. The PMAC offers expert support in the resolution of disputes relating to European patents, European patents with unitary effect and supplementary protection certificates for which the UPC is competent pursuant to Article 32 of the UPCA, as well as "related disputes". Related disputes are defined in the PMAC Rules as disputes involving other patents, patent applications or patent portfolios, whether or not the patent rights concerned are European patents, European patents with unitary effect or supplementary protection certificates, as well as 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 partly competent. Thus, the PMAC's competence extends even beyond the UPC's long-arm jurisdiction, as there are no territorial limitations such as the defendant's domicile or the place where the alleged patent infringement occurred.
Furthermore, at the PMAC, a finding in arbitration or a settlement reached in mediation that, for example, a patent is invalid or unenforceable will have only inter partes effect, whereas at the UPC a finding of invalidity will have erga omnes effect. There will be instances in which litigants will wish to resolve validity issues with only inter partes effect outside the UPC's jurisdiction—for example, in commercially important non-UPC jurisdictions such as China, Korea, Japan, the United States, India and Brazil.
The PMAC offers unique hybrid Med-Arb proceedings, including the possibility for a co-mediator who exclusively attends the joint sessions (and not the caucus meetings) subsequently to become the sole arbitrator. It also supports the combination of mediation with other types of ADR, such as expert determination or early neutral evaluation, for which draft rules have recently been published for public consultation. The PMAC Rules also contain dedicated provisions on FRAND disputes of an exemplary and facultative nature. The inclusion of these provisions is pioneering in the field of ADR and highlights the PMAC's important role in the resolution of FRAND/SEP disputes.
Timely resolution of disputes is a key feature of the PMAC. Mediation is intended to be concluded within three months, expedited arbitration within six months, and standard arbitration in less than one year. The parties may always agree on even shorter time limits for the completion of the proceedings.
IPE:Based on your experiences and observations, what are the main characteristics of Chinese companies currently involved in UPC proceedings? For example, are there notable patterns in the industries involved, party profiles (i.e., plaintiff/defendant ratio), patent types, common areas of dispute, and the courts’ stances regarding issues such as standards for injunctions?
PMAC:From the UPC case law, we can see that Chinese companies are primarily involved in disputes relating to telecommunications, particularly SEP/FRAND litigation, as well as clean energy technologies, especially solar panels. In the telecommunications sector, the UPC has already issued several decisions concerning FRAND licensing of SEPs (see, e.g., UPC_CFI_210/2023 Panasonic v. OPPO & OROPE; UPC_CFI_218-219-223/2023 Panasonic v. Xiaomi; UPC_CFI_216/2023 Panasonic v. OPPO; and UPC_CFI_9/2023 Huawei v. Netgear). Although these decisions suggest that Chinese companies with a strong presence in the EU market have so far predominantly appeared as defendants, the number of cases remains limited, and it is still too early to conclude whether this represents a broader trend in SEP/FRAND disputes before the UPC. In addition, the UPC has granted injunctions in several Contracting Member States in SEP/FRAND disputes, for example in UPC_CFI_210/2023 Panasonic v. OPPO & OROPE.
In the clean energy market, we can see a recent decision involving Chinese companies in which JingAo Solar sued Astronergy for infringement of TOPCon technology related to solar panels (JA Solar v. Chint/Astronergy, UPC_CFI_425/2024 and UPC_CFI_751/2024). In that case, the parties reached a settlement and the proceedings were terminated. The settlement not only brought the UPC proceedings to an end but also concluded the parallel opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office ("EPO"). This demonstrates that UPC proceedings may create challenges for Chinese companies in the EU market and that appropriate dispute resolution through the PMAC could therefore be attractive for Chinese companies.
IPE:For Chinese companies involved in UPC litigation, what practical advantages can mediation offer compared with litigation, particularly in terms of time and cost efficiency, reputation management, EU market access, and mitigation of injunction risks? What benefits can it bring to patent owners and implementers, respectively?
PMAC:Chinese companies involved in UPC litigation that wish to explore ADR may request an online ADR Information Session, conducted by an accredited neutral, which is free of charge and confidential. The ADR Information Session is designed to provide parties with clear and structured information about the alternative dispute resolution options available at the PMAC.
If the parties decide to explore mediation, this may be particularly advantageous for preserving business relationships while achieving efficient and cost-effective dispute resolution. Mediation is confidential, and the parties may decide either to request a stay of the litigation during mediation (a "mediation window") or to conduct mediation in parallel with the litigation (a "mediation shadow"). They may also agree that any undertaking not to initiate or actively continue judicial, arbitral or similar proceedings applies either to the entire dispute or only to specific parts of it. In the latter case, proceedings relating to those parts of the dispute that are not subject to the pending mediation before the PMAC may continue in parallel.
In terms of time and cost, mediation at the PMAC offers several advantages. For example, the parties may tailor the mediation process to their needs or choose to expedite the proceedings. Mediation is intended to be completed within three months from the appointment of the mediator. However, the parties may request an extension of this period of up to twelve months from the PMAC. Mediation may also be combined with other forms of ADR, such as arbitration, expert determination and early neutral evaluation.
Chinese companies also have the opportunity to conduct proceedings online and to consolidate several disputes into a single mediation proceeding before the PMAC, provided that they fall within the PMAC's scope of competence and that the "related disputes" satisfy the required factual, legal or commercial nexus. The concentration of several disputes within a single mediation may help preserve business relationships between the parties and strengthen their presence in the EU market. Furthermore, Chinese companies may be able to conduct the mediation in the Chinese language and to hold meetings at their preferred location. They may also opt for co-mediation and appoint a Chinese mediator, whether accredited by the PMAC or not, subject to the PMAC's approval.
Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 370(9)(d) of the UPC RoP, where the parties settle their dispute through the PMAC before the closure of the interim procedure, or before the date specified by the judge-rapporteur at the interim conference, the party liable for the UPC court fees is entitled to a 65% reimbursement of those fees.
The PMAC also offers financial incentives for mediation. Where parties refer a pending UPC dispute to mediation before the closure of the interim procedure, they are required to pay only 50% of the registration fee. In addition, where the mediation proceedings are conducted online, the parties are required to pay only 50% of the Administrative Fee. Small enterprises, micro-enterprises and natural persons are also entitled to a 50% reduction in the applicable PMAC fees.
IPE:Under the most updated rules, what does the complete end-to-end UPC mediation process look like? At what stage is it optimal for a company to initiate mediation — for example, pre-litigation, early in the litigation proceedings, after evidence exchange, or before trial? What are the key considerations and strategic priorities specific to each stage? Can the mediation process help companies effectively neutralize injunction risk?
PMAC:Article 11(1) of the UPC RoP provides that, at any stage of the proceedings, the UPC may propose that the parties make use of the facilities of the PMAC. The first written invitation to consider ADR at the PMAC will be sent to the litigants soon after the filing of a case before the UPC. Early consideration of, and referral to, mediation is of key importance because litigants can save significant time and costs. Even if they do not settle (yet) and return to litigation, they will have restored communication through mediation and gained a better understanding of the relevant circumstances and interests. Of course, mediation should not be regarded as a kind of fishing expedition for evidence. That is why strict confidentiality rules and principles apply. Nor should mediation be abused as a delaying tactic in litigation. That is why we also offer litigants mediation "shadow" proceedings, allowing litigation to continue in parallel.
Mediation at the UPC may become presumed, meaning that, despite remaining voluntary, parties are expected to attempt mediation at least once during the lifetime of a dispute. Litigants should also be aware that it is the duty of the judge-rapporteur during the interim conference to explore with the parties the possibility of a settlement. The same duty also applies to appellate judges. The benefit of mediation is that the parties are always free to leave the process if they consider it unsuitable, while retaining full control over the outcome.
Following the CJEU framework in Huawei v. ZTE, disputants may wish to show good-faith willingness to negotiate licensing terms and consent to selected proceedings at the PMAC. Courts are already applying that logic: in Samsung v. ZTE, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim recently invited the parties to consider mediation at the PMAC. Mediation could therefore effectively neutralize injunction risks.
IPE:How enforceable are settlements and awards reached through PMAC mediation or arbitration? Can they be enforced directly throughout the EU? If one party breaches the agreement, what expedited remedies are available to the other party?
PMAC:Pursuant to Rules 365 and 11.2 of the UPC RoP, the parties may jointly agree in writing to request confirmation by decision of the UPC of the terms of any settlement reached using the facilities of the PMAC, including any term obliging the patent owner to limit, surrender or agree to the revocation of a patent, or not to assert it against the other party or parties. Such a request may be made whether or not litigation or other dispute resolution proceedings are pending before the UPC or any other authority. Parties may prefer the direct UPC enforcement regime when seeking to enforce against assets located within the EU.
Another enforcement regime to bear in mind is hybrid Mediation-Arbitration ("Med-Arb") proceedings at the PMAC, which may, in appropriate cases, allow mediated settlements to be enforced as consent arbitral awards. The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards may be more attractive outside the EU, given the absence of bilateral or multilateral agreements on the recognition and enforcement of judgments.
This is particularly relevant in countries that have not yet ratified the Singapore Convention on Mediation. Because the EU has unfortunately still not signed the Convention, non-EU disputants may be keen to use the PMAC's dual enforcement regime when seeking to enforce against assets within the EU. Conversely, European disputants should note that, because the Singapore Convention does not apply the principle of reciprocity, it applies in every country that has ratified it, regardless of whether the disputant's home state is also a party.
IPE:SEPs involve significant public interest considerations, yet confidentiality is a core principle of mediation and arbitration. In its rules and practices, how does the PMAC balance the public transparency requirements specific to SEP cases against the need to protect commercially sensitive information such as trade secrets and FRAND terms? Are there any "confidentiality-and-disclosure" balancing mechanisms, exception provisions, or supporting arrangements in place?
PMAC:At the PMAC, confidentiality is the cornerstone of our proceedings. Taking into consideration the specific features of the SEP/FRAND ecosystem, and the need to ensure appropriate disclosure in the licensing of SEPs on FRAND terms, particularly with regard to comparable licences and top-down approaches, the parties may decide to strengthen confidentiality by limiting the number of persons with access to confidential information, appointing a confidentiality advisor, or entering into non-disclosure agreements.
The PMAC Rules also regulate the parties' ability to consent to the publication of arbitral awards and expert determinations (including in redacted form), or to object, within 60 days of notification of the award or determination, to their anonymised publication. Transparency in FRAND licensing enables better cost planning and helps ensure that the same terms are offered to all competitors. Taking into consideration the need for a transparent legal framework governing the use of ADR proceedings, the PMAC strikes a balance between the transparency needs of SEP holders and implementers and the confidentiality principles governing its ADR proceedings.
IPE:In July 2025, Samsung and InterDigital had their licensing royalty rates determined by an ICC arbitral tribunal. More recently, the UK Court of Appeal in the Nokia v. Acer and Nokia v. Asus cases confirmed that a binding arbitration offer can constitute a valid form of FRAND licensing. Does this signal that arbitration will become a mainstream mode for resolving SEP disputes going forward? What are the key advantages and disadvantages of arbitration compared to litigation?
PMAC:Recent developments in FRAND disputes show that numerous court proceedings may run in parallel worldwide, which inevitably leads to divergent valuations and different global FRAND rates. FRAND is therefore becoming a forum-driven pricing mechanism. Referring a FRAND dispute to PMAC arbitration would address the core issue—the licence terms—directly, without the need for complex and expensive preliminary litigation over infringement, essentiality and validity.
At the PMAC, a finding in arbitration that, for example, a patent is invalid or unenforceable will have only an inter partes effect, whereas at the UPC a finding of invalidity will have erga omnes effect. It may well be that the risk of central revocation makes dispute resolution at the PMAC an attractive option for patentees. Alleged infringers may also prefer a system in which the patent remains in force, while they are able to continue their activities behind the shield of a confidential arbitral award in their favour.
Another important aspect of arbitration or mediation before the PMAC is that the parties are free to structure the proceedings as they see fit, something that is not possible under ordinary litigation rules. For example, in arbitration concerning standard essential patents ("SEPs"), the parties may agree to front-load the proceedings with a determination of the FRAND terms, while reserving questions of essentiality, validity and infringement for determination by the tribunal at a later stage, if necessary. Alternatively, they may first seek to resolve the dispute through mediation in an effort to agree on FRAND terms.
Should the parties opt for expedited arbitration at the PMAC, they may obtain a final and enforceable award much sooner than they would receive a final court decision in litigation, while also achieving significant cost savings through the lower costs of the proceedings.
IPE:Following PMAC’s official launch, what are the selection criteria and composition of the first group of mediators and arbitrators? Does it include specialists with expertise in SEP licensing, FRAND rate-setting, and comparable license analysis? Must mediators and arbitrators hold European patent attorney qualifications? What proportion are non-European experts? Do Chinese companies have rights to nominate mediators or arbitrators, and what is the process for doing so?
PMAC:At the PMAC, mediators, arbitrators and experts are selected in accordance with the applicable PMAC Selection Criteria and are expected to comply with the relevant Codes of Conduct. These, together with the other legal documents governing the PMAC, are publicly available on the PMAC website at Rules & Legal Documents | Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre of the Unified Patent Court (PMAC).
Following two calls for applications, the PMAC has established a List of Neutrals comprising approximately 400 individuals. The current pool is predominantly composed of European professionals, while also including experienced neutrals from the United States, the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions, including China. As an international dispute resolution centre, the PMAC is committed to further strengthening the geographical diversity of its List of Neutrals, particularly by increasing representation from Asia. We therefore encourage qualified professionals from China and other Asian jurisdictions to apply and contribute to the continued development of the PMAC's international pool of neutrals.
PMAC neutrals are not required to hold European patent attorney qualifications. The List of Neutrals includes more than 100 specialists with expertise in SEP/FRAND disputes, while also offering considerable expertise across other patent-related fields, commercial disputes and other areas of intellectual property. It intentionally brings together judicial, legal, technical, business and academic professionals, enabling parties to appoint neutrals whose qualifications and expertise best match the legal, technical and commercial issues arising in their dispute.
Chinese companies enjoy the same rights as all other users of the PMAC. Under the PMAC framework, they may nominate mediators, arbitrators and experts in accordance with the applicable Rules. Parties may also nominate mediators, experts or arbitrators who are not PMAC-accredited. This gives parties considerable flexibility to appoint neutrals whose expertise best matches the legal, technical and commercial issues arising in their dispute.
IPE:President Klaus Grabinski has noted in interviews that PMAC's arbitration, mediation, and expert opinion proceedings are not limited to European patents or unitary patents, and that parties may also seek resolution of global patent disputes through PMAC. Could you elaborate on this in more detail?
PMAC:The scope of competence of the PMAC is based on Article 32 of the UPCA. In principle, the PMAC is competent to administer disputes concerning European patents, European patents with unitary effect and supplementary protection certificates. The PMAC Rules incorporate the term "related disputes" in Articles 1 (Definitions) and 2 (Scope of Competence). "Related disputes" are defined in the PMAC Rules as disputes involving other patents, patent applications or patent portfolios, whether or not the patent rights in question are European patents, European patents with unitary effect or supplementary protection certificates, as well as 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 partly competent.
This definition is particularly relevant to the PMAC. First, IP disputes have become global. Although IP rights are territorial, in an interconnected economy intellectual property has become a global matter. This is particularly important in disputes involving industries where infringement may also be associated with other intellectual property rights, such as trade marks, designs or copyright, or in cases involving patent families registered in different jurisdictions. Second, the IoT economy and the declaration of SEPs on FRAND terms to standard development organisations (SDOs) have created a global SEP licensing ecosystem. SEPs are typically protected by patent families covering multiple jurisdictions. This situation gives rise to multiple patent disputes around the world concerning FRAND licensing. The definition of "related disputes" is therefore particularly important, as it enables several proceedings to be concentrated within a single ADR proceeding under the PMAC Rules. The PMAC could therefore be considered a one-stop option for disputants.
IPE:Beyond the topics discussed above, are there any additional issues concerning PMAC’s latest rules and operational arrangements that Chinese companies and IP industry in China should pay particular attention to?
PMAC:We have recently launched a public consultation on the Draft Rules on Early Neutral Evaluation. This procedure could be particularly valuable in the context of arbitration before the PMAC or litigation before the UPC, as the parties may elect to refer disputed facts, evidence and/or legal issues to the PMAC for evaluation. A neutral evaluator will assess and present the strengths and weaknesses of the case and may also evaluate the parties' realistic prospects of success. We would like to take this opportunity to invite all Chinese stakeholders to participate in this public consultation. Further information, including the Draft Rules and details on how to submit comments, is available on the PMAC website at Public Consultation on Draft Early Neutral Evaluation Rules
