The Arbitration Rules Of The Unified Patent Court's Patent Mediation And Arbitration Centre

Last week the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) published its final procedural rules for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) (for details on the PMAC, read our blog post here). Alongside mediation and expert determination, PMAC’s ADR offering includes a comprehensive set of arbitration rules tailored to patent disputes. In this post, we examine the key aspects of the PMAC Arbitration Rules (the Rules).

Scope of the arbitration rules

PMAC administers arbitration relating to patents under the jurisdiction of the UPC, which is currently in force across 18 Member States. This includes arbitration relating to European Patents (EPs) within the UPC's jurisdiction, European patents with unitary effect (known as unitary patents (UPs)) and supplementary protection certificates related to those patents (SPCs) (Article 2.1 of the Rules). It also extends to “Related Disputes”, which are 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”. PMAC's services can therefore be engaged when there is a dispute concerning a patent (or related intellectual property or commercial matter) with a nexus to the UPC.

Key provisions

The Rules are comprehensive, modern rules, which feature the following (amongst other things):

• Online case management – PMAC has established an electronic case management system (CCMS), and all notices and communications are expected to be lodged and delivered using this system. This approach aligns with the practice of other leading arbitral institutions, which have similarly adopted electronic communication as the default.
• List of arbitrators - PMAC maintains a list of arbitrators, from which the parties may choose, but they can also propose other arbitrators for approval by PMAC. This may be helpful for parties in identifying arbitrator candidates with the requisite expertise in patent disputes.
• Interim protective measures – Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, Article 24 gives the Tribunal the power to grant interim measures, including exceptionally on an ex-parte basis. Article 24(3) sets out a detailed test for the Tribunal to consider when granting such measures, including urgency, irreparable harm, the merits of the claim, necessity and proportionality. The inclusion of these detailed criteria, which are not a standard feature of all arbitral rules, gives parties a clearer framework for assessing whether to seek interim relief and how best to present their case.
• Emergency arbitration – Article 25 provides for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator within two working days. Once the main tribunal is constituted, it may, upon request, modify or terminate any measure ordered by the emergency arbitrator. These provisions align with the timetable and approach taken by other institutions.
• Tribunal-appointed experts – Article 28 empowers the tribunal to appoint one or more independent experts to report to it on specific issues identified by the tribunal. This may be particularly helpful for disputes of a technical nature.
• Production of documents – Article 29 contains detailed provisions on document production, giving the tribunal discretion to order production where necessary or appropriate. This is not standard in other arbitration rules. Whilst it may provide helpful guidance, it remains to be seen how it might interact with party reliance on the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence, for example. 
• Experiments – Article 30 empowers a tribunal to order that a party may rely on the results of an experiment to establish any fact that is relevant to an issue in dispute. This provision appears to be specifically tailored to the needs of patent disputes.
• Multiparty provisions - Articles 32 and 33 contain joinder and consolidation provisions subject to party consent, in common with other major rules.
• Expedited arbitration – Article 39 provides for expedited arbitration before a sole arbitrator, with the final award to be made within six months. The expedited procedure applies automatically where the amount in dispute does not exceed EUR 1M, but the parties can also agree to apply it in higher value cases. This is a modern feature which should be attractive to users who wish to refer less complex or urgent cases to arbitration.
• Time limit for rendering an award – The tribunal shall endeavour to hand down the final award within 9 months from the date of the first procedural order. This reflects a strong emphasis on procedural efficiency and the timely resolution of disputes.

Interaction with other forms of ADR and Med-Arb provisions

Pursuant to Article 4, the parties may agree to attend 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(5)). Following the session, the parties may consent to appoint the same neutral to assist them under PMAC’s mediation or expert determination rules (Article 4(7)), or agree that the neutral be appointed as arbitrator (Article 4(8)).

This is consistent with the Mediation Rules, which also provide for a hybrid mediation-arbitration 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, or alternatively jointly appoint a sole arbitrator who will issue an award in respect of parts of a dispute which remain unresolved following a mediation. 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 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.

Interaction with UPC litigation and parallel proceedings

Parties can elect to arbitrate regardless of whether UPC proceedings are pending (Article 5(2)). However, arbitration proceedings will only be commenced if both parties consent. A joint request is also required for the UPC to stay the proceedings pending ADR, and PMAC will inform the UPC when ADR proceedings have terminated (Article 6). Article 50 further confirms that the parties may agree to stay parallel proceedings or agree that non-overlapping proceedings can continue.

FRAND disputes

Article 48 makes specific provision for the arbitration of FRAND disputes (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing terms for standard essential patents (SEPs)). It sets out examples of matters that can be raised, such as identifying the SEPs in dispute, determining interim licensing terms, or establishing the methodology for calculating FRAND royalty rates. The Rules also envisage the publication by PMAC of non-binding guidelines for dealing with FRAND disputes, to be updated as needed.

Confidentiality

Article 47 contains a detailed confidentiality regime and confirms that the arbitration is confidential unless the parties agree otherwise or an exception applies. This differs from the current version of the ICC rules, which do not contain any confidentiality provision, but is similar to others (such as the LCIA rules). The parties may agree to additional protective measures, such as appointing a neutral confidentiality advisor, restricting access to confidential information, or entering into separate confidentiality orders. Article 47(7) allows PMAC to publish awards and other decisions in anonymised form, unless a party objects in writing within 60 days of notification of an award.

Enforcement of consent awards

Pursuant to Article 36, the parties may jointly request the UPC to confirm the terms of a consent award, making it enforceable as a decision of the Court (for more on the jurisdiction of the UPC see our UPC hub and UPC blog post series). Awards rendered under the Rules will also be enforceable under the New York Convention. 

The PMAC website also confirms that a patent may not be revoked or limited in arbitration proceedings – though Article 36 confirms that the parties can agree a settlement 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/parties.

Arbitration costs

PMAC's administrative fees are calculated by reference to the amount in dispute. Except for emergency and expedited arbitrations, arbitrator fees are charged on an hourly basis. PMAC's Fee Schedule can be found here.

Conclusion

The PMAC Arbitration Rules represent a significant addition to the dispute resolution landscape for European patent disputes. With modern procedural features — including emergency and expedited procedures, detailed confidentiality protections and specific FRAND provisions — PMAC offers a credible alternative or complement to litigation before the UPC or national courts. The ability to have arbitration (or other ADR) at PMAC in parallel with litigation could be a significant advantage. Some elements may be easier to determine by ADR (such a specific licence terms), with others more suited to court determination (or only able to be determined by a court – such as erga omnes validity or invalidity findings, when within a court's particular jurisdiction – in relation to which see our blog post here). The ability to enforce consent awards through the UPC, combined with the flexibility to run arbitration alongside court proceedings, makes this a potentially attractive option for parties seeking efficient, confidential resolution of complex cross-border patent disputes. 

PMAC mediation services are already in operation, with the first reference to them having been made on 13 May (the day after they commenced) – although this led to a stay of the proceedings. Arbitration and expert determination services are expected to be available following the formal launch of PMAC on 2 June 2026.

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.