Context: The UPC’s Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC), which offers alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for patent disputes, held its official inauguration in Ljubljana, Slovenia, on June 2, 2026. Within two weeks, it had already received its first joint request for mediation, marking the first practical sign that parties are beginning to use the UPC’s ADR arm (June 28, 2026 UPC Roundup). Then, earlier this month, the PMAC established a new working group to develop non-binding guidelines and best practice recommendations for resolving disputes over fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing terms (July 12, 2026 UPC Roundup).
What’s new: The PMAC on Monday published the full list of experts who will be working on the FRAND policy guidelines (July 9, 2026 decision (PDF)). The group will oversee the drafting of the PMAC’s FRAND Guidelines to assist parties and assist neutrals/arbitrators with FRAND disputes and how to run them in the most consistent, efficient way. The Guidelines are non-binding, and more like best practice recommendations, made on the basis of an initial discussion paper drawn up by its members. They will also consider input from public stakeholders, including SEP holders and implementers, who will be invited to submit their comments and suggestions.
Direct impact: The Working Group’s composition should allow for a balanced draw-up of the Guidelines, given the variety of nationalities, professions, and parts of the SEP ecosystem present. This week, ip fray spoke to several members of the Working Group about being appointed, and what they expect to come out of this process for the PMAC. Their responses are below.
Meet the members
The Working Group will be chaired by Simon Dack, a PMAC Expert Committee Member and a former HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER partner.
The members include (in alphabetical order):
- Antonio Di Bernardo: President of THINX Intellectual Property Protection
- Bart van den Broek: founding partner of HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER, a judge of the UPC’s Court of Appeal
- Richard Buttrick: independent IP consultant, Scotland
- Dr. Roya Ghafele: director of law and economics consultancy OxFirst
- Sir Robin Jacob: a former judge in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Director of the UCL Institute of Brand and Innovation Law (IBIL).
- Dr. Aleksandra Kuźnicka-Cholewa: counsel, CMS. She was also a member of the European Commission’s Standard-Essential Patent Working Group that made recommendations in the build-up to the SEP Regulation proposal.
- Taraneh Maghamé: Founder & Principal of Maghame IP Consulting and Legal Services, and a former Vice President at Via Licensing
- Dr. Jacques Raynard: Professor of Law at the University of MontpellierÂ
- Cordula Schumacher: partner, Arnold Ruess (ip fray firm profile)
- Dr. Yanfang Wang: former Chinese judge and professor in IP law at East China University of Political Science and Law
- Alex Wilson: partner, Powell Gilbert
- Dr. Matthias Zigann: Presiding Judge of the UPC’s Munich LD
Several members of the Working Group spoke to ip fray about how they feel about being appointed.
‘An important milestone’
Simon Dack, Chair of the PMAC Working Group, says that he is “very honoured” to have been asked to be the chair of such a “distinguished” group of experts. While he notes that they have only just had their first meeting, he is sure that, with the benefit of input from outside stakeholders, they will be able to develop Guidelines that provide assistance both to parties contemplating making use of the ADR possibilities offered by the PMAC, and also to neutrals charged with conducting the proceedings.
Arnold Ruess’s Cordula Schumacher also says she is “very honored” to be part of this group. She believes it is a great mix of people and thinks she will contribute in a meaningful way with her almost 20 years litigating SEP cases and advising on many licensing negotiations.
She also tells ip fray that the PMAC offers a USP over other ADR fora in solving SEP cases: its proximity to the UPC court system and the specific rules on SEP cases. “However,” she notes, “mediation and arbitration remain and should remain voluntary, thus both parties need to agree to it.”
Dr. Aleksandra Kuźnicka-Cholewa of CMS Law tells ip fray that this is an “important milestone” in the launch of the PMAC’s arbitration services, which are due to begin this fall. While the composition of this group has raised concerns from both SEP holders and implementers, both willing to include more members in the Group, in Ms. Kuźnicka-Cholewa’s view, this is an indication of its “diverse character”.
It brings together industry experts, academics, practitioners, and judges with extensive SEP experience from a range of jurisdictions and professional backgrounds, ensuring a diversity of perspectives, she notes, adding that all stakeholders will have “at least two opportunities to provide input: first during the consultation on the initial discussion paper and subsequently during the review of the draft Guidelines. The views and interests of all stakeholders will be carefully considered to ensure that the resulting framework is balanced, credible and, as a result, widely adopted”.
Powell Gilbert’s Alex Wilson also emphasizes the broad range of backgrounds appointed to the Working Group – from senior judges, to academics, to lawyers representing different ends of the SEP space. “It’s a great group of people,” he tells ip fray. He especially notes that Mr. Dack is a “great appointment”, given his years as an EPO examiner, a well-known patent litigator for HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER, and his time so far as leader of the Expert Group for the PMAC itself.
Mr. Wilson also stresses that the Guidelines he will help develop are just that: non-binding guidelines.
“It’s an area where there are strong feelings on both sides of the debate, but the Guidelines should not engender such strong feelings,” he says, “they cannot be one-sided, or the PMAC will not use them.”
Dr. Roya Ghafele, director of law and economics consultancy OxFirst, tells ip fray that in her new role for the PMAC’s Working Group, she will “continue to emphasize the importance of economics in IP disputes, particularly when assessing the value of IP, determining appropriate damages, and understanding the commercial realities underlying a case”.
Often, she notes, focusing on economics is misunderstood as “inherently favoring the defense”. But she believes justice requires a question to be examined from different perspectives – “a purely legal analysis can only take us so far; a fair and balanced assessment must also consider the economic evidence”.