作为欧洲专利制度近三十年来最具里程碑意义的变革，统一专利法院（UPC）自正式运行以来，已成为全球跨境专利争议的核心舞台。中国企业在通信标准必要专利（SEP）、清洁能源等领域的涉诉案例持续涌现，欧洲市场的专利诉讼与禁令风险，已成为出海企业合规管理的核心课题。
近日，UPC下设的专利调解与仲裁中心（PMAC）于斯洛文尼亚首都卢布尔雅那举行揭牌仪式，宣告正式启用。伴随着《调解规则》《仲裁规则》《专家裁定规则》等核心制度文件终稿发布，PMAC作为首个内嵌于超国家专利纠纷法院的ADR中心，凭借宽泛的管辖边界、与诉讼程序的深度衔接、全欧盟可直接执行的和解效力等制度设计，迅速成为全球知识产权行业的关注焦点。
为帮助国内产业界与法律界全面把握PMAC的制度逻辑、规则亮点与实操要点，知产财经特邀PMAC展开独家对话，围绕规则修订亮点、管辖范围、全流程程序、有关标准必要专利的FRAND争议解决、中国企业适用策略等核心议题展开深度解读，为中国企业应对欧洲专利诉讼、搭建跨境专利风险防控体系提供专业指引。
作者：李程程 知产财经
知产财经：本次UPC仲裁调解中心正式运行前发布的系列核心文件，相较于此前的征求意见稿/试行版本，有哪些关键修订与新增条款？其中最核心的制度创新、差异化亮点是什么？
IP Economy: 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：经过公开征求意见，以及由18个欧盟成员国政府代表组成的UPC行政委员会的审议，PMAC《调解规则》《仲裁规则》与《专家裁定规则》（合称“PMAC 规则”）进行了多项重要修订。
本次征求意见得到了行业的高度参与，共收到专利权人、专利实施方等各类利益相关方提交的近千份高质量反馈意见，其中大量建议被吸纳进修订条款，充分兼顾了知识产权行业各方参与者的多元利益与诉求。反馈结果也显示，各方普遍支持PMAC对所有专利相关争议行使管辖权，印证了PMAC这一机制的现实价值与市场需求。
意见汇总可参见官网：Statistics | Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre of the Unified Patent Court (PMAC)
在程序框架层面，PMAC规则的优化主要包括以下六点：一是更清晰地界定了PMAC宽泛的管辖范围；二是将免费线上ADR说明会的适用对象，从UPC诉讼当事人扩大至所有争议方；三是依托中心案件管理系统（CCMS）推行数字化优先的办案模式；四是增设混合型调仲结合程序条款；五是强化仲裁程序的保密与透明度规则；六是新增标准必要专利的“公平、合理、无歧视”（FRAND）争议专项条款，明确授权PMAC出台非约束性FRAND指引的相关条款。为推进该项工作，目前，PMAC 已成立专项专家工作组，正着手起草FRAND指引讨论稿，后续将向全球公开征求意见与反馈。我们也很高兴地看到，PMAC在册的中立专家中，有一位资深中国专家已入选该工作组。
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.
知产财经：PMAC作为UPC专属ADR机构即将运行。对比欧盟境内其他专利纠纷调解机制、WIPO仲裁与调解中心的同类规则，PMAC有哪些专属优势与独特定位？在UPC统一专利体系下，PMAC在管辖权边界、与诉讼程序的衔接上有哪些不可替代的特性？PMAC的计划争议解决周期预计为多久？
IP Economy: 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：PMAC是UPC的有机组成部分，依据《统一专利法院协定》（UPCA）第35条设立。它是全球首个嵌入超国家专利法院体系的ADR中心。这一定位决定了PMAC既可以与UPC诉讼程序深度联动，也能独立于诉讼之外，作为独立争议解决渠道存在。
PMAC的受案范围非常广：既包括UPC、各国法院或各国知识产权局（含欧洲以外机构）正在审理的争议，也包括当事人依据争议解决条款或争议专门协议提交至PMAC的纠纷。
UPC与PMAC的程序衔接规则规定于UPC《程序规则》（RoP）第11条与第365条：UPC在诉讼程序的任何阶段，都可以将适合调解或仲裁的争议移交PMAC处理；经调解达成的和解协议与同意裁决，可在所有UPC缔约成员国境内直接执行，仲裁裁决也可依据《纽约公约》申请承认与执行。
与其他ADR机构相比，PMAC最核心的差异体现在管辖范围上。除了UPCA第32条规定的欧洲专利、单一效力欧洲专利、补充保护证书相关争议，PMAC还可以处理“关联争议”。根据PMAC规则定义，所谓“关联争议”，是指涉及其他专利、专利申请或专利组合的争议，以及其他知识产权或商事争议，只要该争议与UPC有管辖权的某起专利争议存在事实、法律或商业层面的关联即可。因此，PMAC的管辖范围甚至超出了UPC的长臂管辖权，不受被告住所地、被控侵权行为地等地域限制。
此外，在PMAC程序中，仲裁庭作出的专利无效或不可执行认定，或调解达成的相关和解，效力仅及于双方当事人；但UPC诉讼作出的专利无效认定具有对世效力。而部分诉讼当事人恰恰可能希望仅就专利效力问题达成约束双方的解决方案，尤其是在中国、韩国、日本、美国、印度、巴西等商业价值重大的非UPC司法辖区，PMAC的机制就非常适用。
PMAC还提供独特的混合型调仲结合程序，其中一种模式是：仅参与联合调解会议、不参与单方磋商会议的联合调解员，可在后续程序中担任独任仲裁员。PMAC也支持调解与专家裁定、早期中立评估等其他ADR方式组合适用，相关规则草案近期已公开征求意见。另外，PMAC规则还设置了示范性、可选性的FRAND争议专项条款，这一制度设计在全球ADR领域具有开创性，凸显了PMAC在FRAND/SEP争议解决领域的重要作用。
高效解纷是PMAC的核心特征：调解程序预计3个月内办结，快速仲裁预计6个月内办结，普通仲裁预计1年以内办结。当事人也可自行约定更短的程序办结期限。
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.
知产财经：从实操数据与行业观察来看，目前中国企业在UPC所涉诉讼呈现了哪些核心特征（例如，涉案行业分布、原告/被告占比、涉案专利类型、纠纷高发环节，以及当前案件的审理走向、裁判尺度与禁令适用特点）？
IP Economy: 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：从UPC已有的司法判例来看，中国企业主要涉诉领域为通信行业（尤其是SEP/FRAND诉讼）以及清洁能源技术（以太阳能光伏板为代表）。
在通信领域，UPC已就标准必要专利的FRAND许可作出多份裁决，比如松下诉OPPO与OROPE案（UPC_CFI_210/2023）、松下诉小米案（UPC_CFI_218-219-223/2023）、松下诉OPPO案（UPC_CFI_216/2023）、华为诉网件案（UPC_CFI_9/2023）。尽管从现有裁决看，深耕欧盟市场的中国企业目前多以被告身份出现，但整体案件数量仍有限，尚不足以判定这会成为长期、普遍趋势。此外，UPC已在多起标准必要专利的FRAND争议中，在多个缔约成员国境内签发了禁令（例如松下诉OPPO与OROPE案）。
在清洁能源领域，近期，晶澳太阳能就光伏板TOPCon技术侵权起诉正泰新能（UPC_CFI_425/2024、UPC_CFI_751/2024）案中，双方最终达成和解，不仅终结了UPC诉讼程序，同时了结了欧洲专利局的并行异议程序。这一案例表明，UPC诉讼确实可能给中国企业的欧盟市场布局带来挑战，而通过PMAC开展合规的争议解决，对中国企业而言是很有吸引力的选项。
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.
知产财经：对于卷入UPC诉讼的中国企业而言，与诉讼相比，调解能够提供哪些实际优势（尤其是在时间成本效率、声誉管理、欧盟市场准入以及降低禁令风险方面）？调解又能分别给专利权人和实施者带来哪些益处？
IP Economy: 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：参与UPC诉讼且有意探索ADR途径的中国企业，可先申请由在册中立专家主持的免费保密线上ADR说明会，了解PMAC提供的各类替代性争议解决方案。
若当事人选择启动调解，其核心优势在于既能高效、低成本地解决争议，又能维护双方商业关系。调解全程保密，当事人既可申请中止诉讼，留出专门的“调解窗口期”集中谈判；也可选择“影子调解”模式，让调解与诉讼并行推进。当事人还可约定：“不启动或不主动推进司法、仲裁或同类程序”的承诺，是适用于全部争议，还是仅限于特定争议事项；若仅覆盖部分事项，未纳入调解范围的争议可继续通过诉讼并行审理。
在时间与成本层面，PMAC调解具备多重优势：当事人可根据自身需求定制调解流程，也可申请加速程序。调解程序自调解员指定之日起原则上3个月内就能办结；确有需要的，当事人也可向PMAC申请延期，最长可延长至12个月。调解还可与仲裁、专家裁定、早期中立评估等其他ADR形式组合适用。
中国企业还可选择在线上开展程序，并将多起符合PMAC管辖范围、满足“关联争议”要求的纠纷，合并为一起调解案件进行处理。多争议集中调解，有助于维护双方商业关系，巩固企业在欧盟市场的布局。此外，中国企业可选择以中文开展调解、在自身方便的地点参会，也可选择联合调解模式并提名中国籍调解员——即使该调解员不在PMAC在册名单内，经PMAC核准也可参与
在费用层面，还有额外的激励政策。根据UPC《程序规则》第370条第9款第d项，若当事人在庭前准备程序终结前，或报告法官在庭前会议中指定的日期前，通过PMAC达成和解的，承担UPC诉讼费的一方可申请退还65%的诉讼费用。另外，若当事人在庭前准备程序终结前，将正在进行的UPC争议提交调解，注册费仅需缴纳50%；若调解全程线上开展，仅需缴纳50%的管理费。小型企业、微型企业及自然人还可享受PMAC费用减半的优惠。
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.
知产财经：最新规则下，UPC调解的完整全流程如何开展？企业在什么时间节点启动调解是最优选择（比如诉前、立案初期、证据交换后，抑或庭审前）？不同节点启动调解，分别有哪些核心注意事项与策略侧重？调解程序能否有效帮助企业化解禁令风险？
IP Economy: 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：UPC《程序规则》第11条第1款规定，UPC可在诉讼程序的任何阶段，建议当事人通过PMAC解决争议。UPC立案后不久，就会向当事人发送书面函件，告知其可考虑通过PMAC开展ADR。
我们始终建议当事人尽早考虑并启动调解。越早启动，就越能节省时间与诉讼成本；即便调解暂未达成一致、回到诉讼程序，双方也已通过调解重建沟通，对争议事实与对方核心诉求有了更清晰的认知。当然，调解不应被当作钓鱼式取证的工具，因此程序适用严格的保密规则与原则；调解也不应被滥用作为拖延诉讼的手段，这也是我们提供“影子调解”模式、允许诉讼与调解并行推进的原因。
未来，UPC调解将呈现“推定适用”的特征，即调解仍以自愿为原则，但当事人理论上应在争议解决过程中至少尝试一次调解。当事人需注意，报告法官在庭前会议中有义务与双方探讨和解可能性；上诉阶段法官同样负有该义务。调解的优势在于，当事人若认为程序不适合自身诉求，可随时退出，且始终对争议结果保有完全控制权。
遵循欧盟法院“华为诉中兴”案确立的裁判框架，争议方可通过同意启动PMAC相关程序，证明自身具备协商许可条款的善意。目前，法院已在适用该裁判逻辑：在“三星诉中兴”案中，UPC曼海姆地方分院就已建议双方考虑通过PMAC开展调解。因此，调解可有效缓释禁令风险。
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.
知产财经：通过调解/仲裁达成的和解/仲裁协议，在UPC体系下的司法确认与强制执行效力如何？能否在欧盟全境内得到直接执行？若一方违约，企业有哪些快速救济途径？
IP Economy: 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：根据UPC《程序规则》第365条与第11.2条，当事人可共同书面申请，请求UPC以裁定形式确认通过PMAC达成的和解条款——包括专利权人限制、放弃、同意撤销专利，或承诺不对对方主张专利权的条款。无论UPC或其他机构是否正在审理相关诉讼或争议解决程序，当事人均可提出该申请。若需针对欧盟境内资产执行，当事人可优先选择UPC直接执行机制。
另一套值得关注的执行机制，是PMAC的混合型调仲结合程序。在符合条件的案件中，调解达成的和解可转化为合意仲裁裁决，具备仲裁裁决的执行效力。在欧盟以外地区，由于目前缺乏承认与执行法院判决的双边或多边协议，依据《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（简称“《纽约公约》”）执行仲裁裁决，往往更具便利性。
这一点对尚未批准《联合国关于调解所产生的国际和解协议公约》（简称“《新加坡调解公约》”）的国家尤为重要。遗憾的是，欧盟至今仍未签署该公约，因此非欧盟争议方若需针对欧盟境内资产执行，往往更倾向于选择PMAC的双重执行机制。相应地，欧盟争议方也需注意，《新加坡调解公约》不适用互惠原则，只要执行地国已批准公约即可适用，与争议方所属国是否加入该公约无关。
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.
知产财经：SEP具有强公共性，但调解/仲裁以保密为核心原则。PMAC在规则设计与实操中，如何平衡SEP案件的公共透明度要求与当事人商业秘密、FRAND条款等核心信息的保密需求？PMAC是否设置了相应的“保密+公开”的平衡机制、例外条款与配套安排？
IP Economy: 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：保密是所有PMAC程序的基石。结合SEP/FRAND的产业特点，以及FRAND许可中合理披露的需求（尤其是可比协议法、自上而下法测算中的信息披露），当事人可通过限定涉密信息知悉人员范围、指定保密顾问、签署保密协议等方式，进一步强化保密效果。
PMAC规则同时明确，当事人可协商一致公开仲裁裁决与专家裁定（可经脱敏处理），也可在收到裁决或裁定通知后的60日内，对匿名化公开提出异议。FRAND许可的透明化有助于企业更精准地做出成本规划，也能保障所有竞争者获得同等许可条件。结合ADR程序透明化的制度需求，PMAC在SEP持有人/实施方的透明度诉求与ADR程序的保密原则之间，作出了合理平衡。
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.
知产财经：2025年7月，三星与InterDigital通过国际商会（ICC）仲裁庭裁决双方许可费。近日，英国上诉法院在诺基亚与宏碁、华硕案件中明确仲裁提议可构成FRAND许可的有效形式。这是否意味着未来仲裁会成为SEP纠纷的主流解决方式？仲裁方式与诉讼相比具有哪些优势与弊端？
IP Economy: 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：FRAND争议的最新发展态势显示：每一起FRAND争议纠纷，往往都会产生全球范围内同时推进的多起平行诉讼，进而不可避免地导致费率认定结果差异、全球FRAND费率标准不统一的问题，FRAND因此正逐渐成为“由管辖地驱动的定价机制”。将FRAND争议提交PMAC仲裁，可直接聚焦许可条款这一核心问题，无需围绕侵权、标准必要性、专利效力开展复杂且高昂的前置诉讼。
在PMAC仲裁程序中，仲裁庭作出的专利无效或不可执行认定仅具有当事人之间效力；而在 UPC诉讼中，专利无效认定具有对世效力。对专利权人而言，专利被全域撤销（central revocation）的风险，可能让PMAC争议解决成为更具吸引力的选项；对被控侵权方而言，专利继续有效、自身可凭借保密的有利仲裁裁决继续开展经营的选项，同样具备吸引力。
PMAC仲裁或调解的另一重要优势是，当事人可自由设计程序结构。这是普通诉讼规则无法实现的。例如，在SEP仲裁中，当事人可约定优先审理FRAND许可条款，将标准必要性、专利效力、侵权问题留待后续必要时再由仲裁庭认定；也可先尝试通过调解协商FRAND条款。若当事人选择PMAC快速仲裁程序，获得终局可执行裁决的速度远快于诉讼终局判决，同时程序费用更低，可显著节省成本。
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.
知产财经：PMAC正式运行后，首批调解员/仲裁员的遴选标准与人员构成是怎样的？是否有熟悉SEP许可、FRAND报价、可比协议拆解等相关领域的专家加入？调解员/仲裁员是否必须具备欧洲专利律师资质？非欧洲专家占比多少？中国企业提名调解员/仲裁员的权利与流程又是怎样的？
IP Economy: 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：PMAC调解员、仲裁员与专家均依据官方遴选标准选任，并需遵守相应的行为准则。上述文件与PMAC的其他法律文件均已在官网公开，可参见：Rules & Legal Documents | Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre of the Unified Patent Court (PMAC)
经过两轮公开招募，PMAC已建立起包含约400名人员的中立专家名册。目前，在册人员以欧洲专业人士为主，同时也吸纳了来自美国、英国及包括中国在内的其他司法辖区的资深专家。作为国际性争议解决中心，PMAC致力于持续提升中立专家名册的地域多样性，尤其是增加亚洲地区专家的占比。我们欢迎中国及其他亚洲司法辖区的符合条件的专业人士报名申请，共同推动PMAC国际专家队伍的发展。
PMAC中立专家无需具备欧洲专利代理人资质。名册中包含100余名深耕SEP/FRAND争议领域的专家，同时覆盖其他专利相关领域、商事争议及其他知识产权领域的专业能力。名册特汇聚司法、法律、技术、商业、学术等多元背景的专业人士，确保当事人可根据争议的法律、技术与商业特点，匹配最适配的中立专家。
中国企业与其他所有使用PMAC服务的当事人享有同等权利，可依据规则提名调解员、仲裁员与专家，也可提名未在PMAC专家名册中的人选。这一制度赋予当事人充分的灵活性，可根据争议的具体法律、技术与商业特点，选聘最匹配的中立专家。
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.
知产财经：Klaus Grabinski院长曾在访谈中提及，PMAC的仲裁、调解和专家意见程序并不局限于欧洲专利或单一专利，当事人也可以就全球性的专利纠纷寻求解决方案。能否详细阐述一下？
IP Economy: 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：PMAC的管辖范围以《统一专利法院协定》第32条为基础，原则上可管辖欧洲专利、单一效力欧洲专利、补充保护证书相关争议。PMAC规则在第1条（定义）与第2条（管辖范围）中引入了“关联争议”概念。根据规则定义，“关联争议”指涉及其他专利、专利申请或专利组合（无论相关专利权是否为欧洲专利、单一效力欧洲专利或补充保护证书）的争议，以及其他知识产权或商事争议——前提是该争议与UPC全部或部分享有管辖权的、已发生或拟提起的欧洲专利/单一效力欧洲专利/补充保护证书争议，存在事实、法律或商业层面的关联。
这一定义对PMAC具备特殊意义，因为：
第一，知识产权争议已呈现全球化特征。尽管知识产权具有地域性，但在高度互联的经济环境下，知识产权事务已具备全球属性。对于侵权行为可能同时涉及商标、外观设计、著作权等其他知识产权的行业，或是涉及在多司法辖区布局的专利家族的案件，这一点尤为重要。
第二，物联网经济，以及企业向标准制定组织（SDO）作出FRAND许可声明的SEP制度的发展，已推动形成全球化的SEP许可生态。SEP通常由覆盖多司法辖区的专利家族保护，由此引发全球范围内多起与FRAND许可相关的专利争议。“关联争议”的定义可将多起争议集中纳入单起PMAC ADR程序处理，使PMAC成为争议方的“一站式”争议解决选项。
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.
知产财经：针对本次UPC调解中心最新规则与运行安排，还有哪些我们未提及，但中国企业、知识产权行业必须重点关注的关键信息？
IP Economy: 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：我们近期已就《早期中立评估规则（草案）》（Draft Rules on Early Neutral Evaluation）启动公开征求意见。该程序对PMAC仲裁或UPC诉讼均具备重要价值：当事人可选择将争议事实、证据及/或法律问题提交PMAC评估，由中立评估人分析双方在案件中的优劣势，也可评估当事人胜诉的现实可能性。
我们借此机会邀请所有中国相关方参与本次公开征求意见，相关规则草案及意见提交方式等详细信息可在PMAC官网查询：https://www.pmac-upc.org/en/news/public-consultation-draft-early-neutral-evaluation-rules
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
京公网安备 11010502049464号