The Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre, an institution more commonly referred to by its English acronym PMAC, lies at the heart of the judicial architecture of the Unified Patent Court as an essential component of the modernisation of industrial property litigation in Europe. Established by the express provisions of Article 35 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, this centre is not intended to remain a mere ancillary forum, but constitutes a genuine macroeconomic regulatory tool designed to offer industrial operators a credible, flexible and highly specialised alternative to the solemnity and uncertainties inherent in public judicial proceedings. The deployment of its operational structures, strategically divided between its seats in Ljubljana and Lisbon, reflects the intention of the Contracting Member States to equip the European Union with a major centre of attractiveness for the peaceful resolution of cross-border disputes relating to industrial property rights.
The institutional anchoring of the centre demonstrates a particularly innovative procedural permeability between the State or supra-State judge and the neutral third party. Far from establishing a watertight separation between public justice and private justice, the Agreement instead organises a genuine normative synergy. On the one hand, referral to the centre may occur autonomously and on a purely contractual basis, prior to the initiation of any proceedings on the merits, thereby making it possible to defuse industrial disputes before they are exposed to the harmful publicity of filing with the Registry. On the other hand, the procedure provides for dynamic gateways during the course of proceedings, in particular requiring the judge-rapporteur, during the written phase and the interim phase, to comply with an ethical and procedural obligation to examine the appropriateness of an amicable settlement. The judge thus has the power formally to invite the parties to make use of the centre’s services, which may, depending on the circumstances, lead to the legitimate stay of the judicial proceedings pending the outcome of the negotiations or the award.
The determination of the scope of the centre’s material jurisdiction raises important theoretical questions concerning the limits of party autonomy in patent law. The European legislator has drawn a watertight boundary by providing in Article 35(2) of the Agreement that a patent may not be revoked or limited in mediation or arbitration proceedings. This prohibition is justified by the fact that the validity of an industrial property right, granted by a public authority and enforceable against all, falls within an exclusive sovereign prerogative that cannot be left to the free disposal of private persons by virtue of contracts which are, by their nature, relative in effect. Revocation decisions with absolute effect remain within the exclusive jurisdiction of the divisions of the Court. However, this restriction in no way amounts to a paralysis of the role of the arbitrator or mediator. It remains perfectly lawful for the parties to stipulate reciprocal undertakings having a purely inter partes effect. The parties may validly settle disputes through waivers of the right to bring proceedings, non-assertion undertakings, contractual limitations of geographical scope, or by mutually undertaking to initiate limitation or surrender proceedings in respect of the right before the European Patent Office or the competent national offices.
The centre’s attractiveness also rests on the remarkable legal effectiveness attached to the outcome of its procedures. The legal order of the Unified Patent Court offers enforcement guarantees that are particularly robust compared with traditional arbitration institutions. Pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Court, and in particular Rule 365, a settlement reached through mediation or an award rendered by an arbitral tribunal under the auspices of the centre may be declared enforceable by the Court itself, thereby conferring upon it the same force as a final judgment of the Court of First Instance. Beyond this intra-Community approval mechanism, final arbitral awards benefit from the full scope of the provisions of the New York Convention of 10 June 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. This dual contractual and judicial nature gives the centre’s decisions a global reach, enabling the compulsory enforcement of financial obligations or obligations to act in the territory of more than one hundred and seventy States, which is crucial for multinational companies whose assets and production units are dispersed beyond the borders of the European Union. Finally, the specific features of proceedings before the centre respond with particular acuity to contemporary economic imperatives, especially in the field of advanced technologies and telecommunications. Disputes concerning standard-essential patents and the determination of royalties on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, known as FRAND terms, find in the centre a particularly suitable forum. The establishment of such licences generally requires a comparative analysis of highly sensitive commercial agreements, the public disclosure of which in the course of traditional State court proceedings could seriously impair the competitive position of the parties. The absolute confidentiality governing mediation and arbitration within the centre provides a watertight sanctuary conducive to mutual concessions. Moreover, the possibility for the parties to appoint neutral third parties from a list of highly qualified experts and legal practitioners ensures that highly technical questions, such as the assessment of the essentiality of a right or the econometric calculation of royalties, are submitted to seasoned specialists, thereby protecting companies against the risk of a lay or erroneous judicial assessment. Ultimately, the centre is establishing itself as an indispensable instrument of legal regulation, combining the rigour of European patent law with the pragmatic flexibility required by international trade.
June 2026
Contributing author
