The Unified Patent Court’s Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) is now operating, on a phased timeline that ran later than early reporting suggested. Following adoption of its Rules of Procedure by the UPC Administrative Committee on April 24, 2026, PMAC opened its doors on May 12, 2026, offering ADR information sessions, mediation services, and its new Case Management System (CCMS) for filing requests. A formal inauguration ceremony followed on June 2, 2026, held at the University of Ljubljana’s Faculty of Law, marking PMAC’s two seats in Ljubljana and Lisbon. Expert determination and arbitration services are being phased in afterward, with arbitration following later in 2026. For university technology transfer offices (TTOs) holding European patents within UPC jurisdiction — Unitary Patents or “classical” European patents that have not been opted out — this is a genuinely new enforcement and dispute-resolution option, not just a UPC procedural footnote.
What PMAC actually is
PMAC is a permanent institution of the UPC, distinct from the UPC’s litigation divisions, offering mediation, arbitration, a hybrid “Med-Arb” procedure, and expert determination for patent disputes. Proceedings can run in English, French, or German. Critically, PMAC’s jurisdiction only reaches disputes that fall within the UPC’s own subject-matter scope — European patents with unitary effect, and classical European patents for which the patentee has not filed a UPC opt-out. A university’s patent portfolio that has been kept entirely outside UPC jurisdiction (via opt-out, or because it consists solely of non-European filings) cannot use PMAC, regardless of how attractive mediation might otherwise be.
One structural limit matters for licensing counsel specifically: PMAC mediators and arbitrators cannot rule on patent validity. Validity remains the UPC’s exclusive preserve. PMAC can resolve infringement questions, licensing and royalty disputes, and settlement terms, but a party cannot use PMAC arbitration to get a binding ruling that a patent is invalid — that still requires a UPC revocation action or counterclaim in litigation.
Two distinct scenarios that matter to a TTO
Most UPC commentary is written for corporate litigants defending or asserting patents directly. University TTOs sit in a different position, and PMAC is relevant to two scenarios that are specific to that position.
1. Licensor-licensee disputes under an existing license agreement
University exclusive license agreements routinely generate disputes that have nothing to do with a third-party infringer: royalty-audit disagreements, diligence and milestone-compliance disputes, disagreements over sublicensing consents, or disputes over what counts as a licensed product under a field-of-use restriction. These disputes are currently resolved through whatever forum-selection and dispute-resolution clause sits in the license agreement — often ordinary commercial arbitration (ICC, AAA, WIPO) or the courts of a chosen jurisdiction. Where the underlying patent is a Unitary Patent or a non-opted-out European patent, PMAC is now a genuine alternative worth evaluating for new and renegotiated agreements: confidential, patent-specialist arbitrators, and a UPC-affiliated seat, rather than a generalist commercial arbitration body.
2. Enforcement against a third-party infringer
Where a university (or its exclusive licensee, exercising enforcement rights the license agreement grants it) is weighing action against a suspected infringer, PMAC mediation offers a lower-cost, confidential, non-public route to a settlement or licensing outcome, before or instead of filing at the UPC. That matters more for a university licensor than for many corporate patentees: universities frequently have an ongoing interest in the relationship with the alleged infringer, who may be a sponsor, a collaborator, or a future licensee of other university IP, and a public UPC infringement action can foreclose that relationship in ways a confidential mediated settlement does not.
Mediation is not binding until settled — arbitration is
A frequent point of confusion worth stating plainly for licensing staff: PMAC mediation produces a binding outcome only if the parties actually reach and sign a settlement agreement. It is not a decision imposed on the parties. PMAC arbitration, by contrast, produces a binding award once both parties have agreed — in the license agreement or afterward — to submit the dispute to arbitration there. That agreement to arbitrate is what a TTO needs to build in deliberately: PMAC does not acquire authority over a dispute automatically just because the underlying patent is within UPC jurisdiction. Absent a PMAC clause in the license (or a later ad hoc agreement to use PMAC), the parties remain bound by whatever forum they already chose.
What TTOs should actually do now
- Audit new license templates. For agreements covering Unitary Patents or non-opted-out European patents, evaluate adding a PMAC mediation-first, arbitration-fallback clause alongside (or instead of) existing commercial arbitration language, particularly for royalty, diligence, and sublicensing disputes.
- Revisit the opt-out decision with PMAC in view. The UPC transitional period allows opt-outs through June 1, 2030 (see CASRAI’s Unified Patent Court and Unitary Patent guide for the mechanics). A patent kept inside UPC jurisdiction is also a patent that can use PMAC — that’s an additional factor, not just UPC litigation exposure, to weigh in that decision.
- Clarify enforcement-rights language with exclusive licensees. Where a license agreement gives the exclusive licensee the first right to enforce, confirm whether that right extends to initiating or consenting to PMAC mediation/arbitration on the university’s behalf, and whether the university’s consent is required given it remains the patent owner of record.
- Don’t assume arbitration reaches validity. Any PMAC clause should be drafted with the understanding that a validity challenge will still route to the UPC itself.
Frequently asked questions
Does PMAC replace UPC litigation for university patent disputes?
No. PMAC is an alternative and a complement, not a replacement — it sits alongside the UPC’s litigation divisions and can only take disputes within the UPC’s existing subject-matter jurisdiction. Parties generally need to agree, via a contract clause or afterward, to use PMAC; nothing routes there automatically.
Can a university use PMAC for a patent it has opted out of the UPC?
No. An opted-out European patent falls outside UPC jurisdiction entirely, and PMAC’s jurisdiction is limited to matters within UPC jurisdiction — Unitary Patents and non-opted-out classical European patents.
Is a PMAC settlement or award confidential?
Confidentiality is one of PMAC’s stated design goals, in contrast to UPC litigation, which produces public decisions. TTOs weighing reputational or relationship considerations in a dispute should treat that confidentiality as a genuine practical advantage over litigation, while confirming the specific confidentiality terms in PMAC’s procedural rules and any settlement agreement.
When will PMAC arbitration services be fully available?
PMAC opened in phases: mediation and ADR information sessions from May 12, 2026, with expert determination and arbitration services phased in afterward through the remainder of 2026. TTOs planning to rely on PMAC arbitration in a license clause should confirm current service availability directly with PMAC before finalizing agreement language.
