In an era where patent disputes can stretch for years and cost millions in legal fees, mediation is gaining traction as a viable alternative to courtroom battles.
In the United Kingdom and across Europe, mediation offers innovators, patent owners and implementers a way to resolve disputes more quickly, confidentially and cost-effectively, often preserving commercial relationships that might otherwise be strained by adversarial litigation.
Why Patent Mediation Matters
Patent enforcement and licensing disputes typically involve complex technology, high commercial stakes and cross-border elements. Traditional litigation whether in the UK courts or, increasingly, before the Unified Patent Court (UPC) can be protracted and expensive. Mediation, by contrast, allows parties to jointly explore settlement options with the assistance of a neutral mediator, keeping control of the outcome in their own hands rather than leaving it to a judge or arbitral tribunal.
In the UK, courts encourage parties to consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR). While judges cannot order mediation, they can stay proceedings to allow parties time to explore it, and the Civil Procedure Rules and Chancery Guide emphasise ADR’s role in managing cases proportionately to save costs and support settlement discussions (GOV.UK).
Mediation Framework: From London to the Unified Patent Court
The mediation landscape for patent disputes in Europe is undergoing a significant boost with the launch of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC), an institutional ADR body embedded within the structure of the Unified Patent Court. The PMAC is designed to provide mediation (and arbitration) services for disputes falling within the UPC’s jurisdiction, including European and unitary patents, supplementary protection certificates and related contractual conflicts (pmac-upc.org). It is anticipated that the first mediations will take place in May 2026.
According to the brand new PMAC’s website, mediation through the Centre is voluntary, confidential and non-binding, offering a structured yet flexible process tailored to the needs of IP disputes while preserving business relationships and reducing costs relative to full litigation.
Some key features include:
- UPC confirmation: A mediated settlement can be confirmed by the UPC, making it enforceable as if it were a court judgment. This is critical for parties who wish to turn an ADR outcome into a binding enforceable order.
- Online capability: From filing to settlement, mediation can be conducted remotely, with digital submissions and virtual hearings which is a notable advantage for international disputes.
- Flexibility: Parties can choose mediators, procedure, language, and may utilise special provisions tailored to Standard Essential Patent (SEP)/ Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) contexts.
The PMAC framework stems from Article 35 of the Unified Patent Court Agreement, which formally establishes the Centre and its role in patent mediation and arbitration, and envisages the creation of mediation and arbitration rules and a roster of neutrals (epo.org).
Case Law and Judicial Encouragement of Mediation
In addition to procedural references and international precedents, recent English court decisions illustrate how mediation can be judicially encouraged even in commercial disputes. A landmark example is the High Court’s decision in DKH Retail Ltd & others v City Football Group Ltd [2024] EWHC 3231 (Ch), involving the owners of the Superdry clothing brand and the commercial operations of Manchester City Football Club.
Faced with competing branding claims over the use of the words “Super” and “Dry”, the claimant successfully applied for an order compelling the parties to engage in court-ordered mediation prior to trial, exercising the court’s case-management powers under the Civil Procedure Rules following amendments permitting such orders.
Despite the defendant’s objections that mediation would not succeed given the advanced stage of proceedings, Mr Justice Miles ordered a “short, sharp” mediation session; the parties subsequently reached a settlement before trial.
This is the first reported instance of the High Court using its discretionary powers to compel unwilling parties to mediate in an IP-related commercial dispute, underscoring judicial support for mediation as a practical alternative to litigation even where one side initially resists the process. Whilst this is a trade mark case, it probably points the way to a similar approach for patents.
Case Law and the Context for Mediation
While standalone UK patent mediation case law remains relatively limited, out-of-court process, there are important procedural pointers in related English case law:
In disputes generally, English courts can stay proceedings to allow mediation or ADR, and assess whether refusal to engage in good-faith settlement discussions may impact costs.
In addition, evolving FRAND licensing disputes such as recent UK High Court decisions granting interim licences while parties negotiate long-term terms highlight the strategic interplay between litigation pressure and mediated settlement. In Samsung v ZTE [2025] EWCA Civ 1383, the High Court granted an interim FRAND licence against ZTE’s mobile patents, reflecting how judicial interventions can frame the commercial context where mediation is considered.
WIPO Mediation and Arbitration Centre: A Global Benchmark
Well before the creation of PMAC, parties to international patent disputes have relied on the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre. The WIPO Centre is one of the world’s most established IP ADR providers, offering mediation, arbitration, expedited arbitration and expert determination under rules tailored for IP and technology cases.
Examples of WIPO-administered patent mediations illustrate the practical benefits of the process: disputes involving infringement claims and validity counterclaims in different countries have been settled through WIPO mediation, with parties reaching agreed outcomes in months rather than years.
The WIPO Centre also has specific frameworks for SEP and FRAND negotiations, helping parties agree on licensing terms without prolonged cross-border litigation.
UK Intellectual Property Office Mediation Services
On the domestic level, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) also offers mediation services for patent and other IP disputes. Although less specialised than PMAC or WIPO, these services provide an avenue for earlier, lower-cost settlement discussions outside court procedures.
Choosing Mediation: When and Why?
Patent mediation may be particularly suitable when:
- Parties seek to preserve a commercial relationship. For example, in licensing negotiations or joint ventures.
- The dispute involves complex technical issues where a mediator can facilitate joint understanding without protracted discovery.
- Cross-border disputes raise issues of enforcement and cost that make litigation in multiple jurisdictions impractical.
Mediation’s confidentiality also protects sensitive technology and trade secrets, an advantage not always available in public court proceedings.
Conclusion
Patent mediation is poised for expansion in the UK and Europe, supported by both established international forums like the WIPO Mediation and Arbitration Centre and new institutional developments such as the PMAC under the Unified Patent Court framework. For innovators and rights holders navigating the increasingly complex world of patent enforcement and licensing, especially in SEP/FRAND contexts, mediation offers a compelling alternative to traditional litigation; one that balances commercial pragmatism with legal rigour.
As PMAC’s services become fully operational in 2026, and as courts continue to recognise the value of ADR, patent mediation may well become a cornerstone of dispute resolution across jurisdictions.
Please reach out to Andrew Mackenzie our PMAC accredited neutral, or your usual CSY representative, if you would like specific advice on patent mediation.