Deutsche Telekom, A.G. v. Republic of India

Case summary

At a glance

Parties: Deutsche Telekom, A.G. (Germany), appellee, v. the Republic of India, appellant
Case no.: D.C. Circuit No. 24-7081 (appeal from D.D.C. No. 1:21-cv-01070)
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Forum and rules: Confirmation proceeding under the FSIA, the Federal Arbitration Act and the New York Convention; underlying UNCITRAL arbitration seated in Switzerland
Treaty: Germany–India BIT
Underlying award(s): Interim award and final award for $93.3 million issued by an arbitral tribunal in Switzerland
Court: Srinivasan, Chief Judge; Katsas, Circuit Judge (author of the opinion); Rogers, Senior Circuit Judge
Sector: Telecommunications; satellite spectrum
Outcome: Judgment confirming the award vacated and case remanded (3 October 2025). The denial of India's motion to dismiss on immunity and forum non conveniens grounds was upheld, but India may raise its New York Convention merits defenses on remand.
Amount: Final award: $93.3 million. Deutsche Telekom's investment in Devas: nearly $100 million.

The dispute

In 2005 Antrix Corporation Ltd., a space company wholly owned by India, agreed to lease Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. spectrum on two satellites. Deutsche Telekom later invested nearly $100 million in Devas through a Singaporean subsidiary for about 20 percent of its shares. In 2011 India decided to retain the spectrum for other uses and caused Antrix to terminate the deal. Deutsche Telekom brought arbitration in Switzerland under the Germany–India BIT, claiming a breach of the obligation to treat German investments fairly, and obtained a final award of $93.3 million. In the US confirmation proceeding India argued that it was immune and that forum non conveniens applied. It also argued that Deutsche Telekom was not a covered investor and that Devas's activities were pre-investment activities, not covered investments.

Key holdings

The FSIA arbitration exception applies. India's arguments that the dispute involved no covered investor or investment go to the scope of the arbitration agreement, not its existence. They are merits defenses under the New York Convention and do not defeat subject-matter jurisdiction. Part II.A, pp. 7–8
Forum non conveniens does not apply in proceedings to confirm international awards. Article 9(2)(b)(v) of the BIT, which provides that an award shall be enforced in accordance with the national laws of the host State, may bear on choice of law but does not limit enforcement to India. India's personal-jurisdiction argument fails, among other reasons, because it was forfeited. Part II.B and n. 2, p. 9
The BIT's incorporation of the UNCITRAL Rules does not here show a clear and unmistakable intent to give arbitrators exclusive authority over arbitrability. German and Indian law let courts review arbitrability, and Article 9(2)(b)(v) invokes host-State enforcement law. India may therefore raise its investor and investment arguments as a defense under Article V.1(c) of the New York Convention. The court did not retreat from Chevron and Stileks. Part III.A.1, pp. 10–13
The court declined to decide Deutsche Telekom's alternative argument that the Swiss, German and Singapore judgments have preclusive effect. That question is left to the district court on remand. Part III.A.2, pp. 13–14
India did not forfeit its other merits defenses, such as the BIT's national-security exception and fraud in procuring the Devas-Antrix agreement. Its immunity arguments were colorable under the modest standard of Process & Industrial Developments, even though adverse precedent existed. India could therefore raise its defenses in sequence. Part III.B, pp. 14–16
The district court's judgment is vacated and the case remanded. The court expressed no view on whether India's remaining defenses are precluded, were forfeited in the arbitration, or lack merit. Parts III.B and IV, p. 16

Procedural history

2005Antrix and Devas enter into the satellite spectrum venture.
2011India decides to retain the spectrum and causes Antrix to terminate the Devas deal.
11 December 2018The Swiss Federal Supreme Court rejects India's application to set aside the interim award (4A_65/2018).
8 March 2023After the final award for $93.3 million, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court rejects India's request for revision (4A_184/2022). Courts in Germany (Higher Regional Court of Berlin) and Singapore (Singapore International Commercial Court) also confirm the award; their dates are not given.
27 March 2024The US District Court for the District of Columbia denies India's motion to dismiss and confirms the award.
16 January 2025Argument before the D.C. Circuit.
3 October 2025The D.C. Circuit affirms the denial of the motion to dismiss, vacates the confirmation judgment and remands.