Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd.

At a glance

Parties

Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. (India), with intervenors CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited, Telcom Devas Mauritius Limited, Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited and Devas Multimedia America, Inc., v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. (wholly owned by India)

Case no.

US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Nos. 20-36024, 22-35085 and 22-35103 (D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01360-TSZ)

Forum and rules

Action to confirm a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention (9 U.S.C. Chapter 2) and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

Court

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on appeal from the US District Court for the Western District of Washington (Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge)

Tribunal

Circuit Judges Eric D. Miller and Lucy H. Koh (author of the opinion), and District Judge Donald W. Molloy, sitting by designation

Underlying award(s)

ICC award of 14 September 2015 under Article 20 of the Agreement of 28 January 2005, seated in New Delhi. The award found that Antrix had wrongfully repudiated the Agreement.

Treaty

Arbitration clause in Article 20 of the Agreement (ICC or UNCITRAL rules); New York Convention for enforcement

Sector

Satellites; S-band spectrum lease

Outcome

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit affirmed on subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens (12 August 2026). In a concurrent memorandum disposition it affirmed in part and reversed and vacated in part, and remanded on the effect of the Indian set-aside of the award.

Amount

Award enforced: USD 562.5 million.

The dispute

Antrix, the commercial arm of India's Department of Space and the Indian Space Research Organisation, agreed on 28 January 2005 to build, launch and operate two satellites and to lease 70 MHz of S-band spectrum to Devas, an Indian company based in Bangalore. On 25 February 2011 Antrix terminated the Agreement, citing a Government of India policy decision not to provide orbital slots in the S-band for commercial use. An ICC tribunal held on 14 September 2015 that Antrix had wrongfully repudiated the Agreement. Devas and four intervenors (three of its Mauritian shareholders and Devas Multimedia America, Inc.) sought to confirm the USD 562.5 million award in the Western District of Washington, which confirmed it. On appeal Antrix argued that the FSIA arbitration exception does not reach purely foreign commerce, that jurisdiction over it breached Fifth Amendment due process, and that the case should have been dismissed for forum non conveniens in favour of India.

Key holdings

1. The FSIA arbitration exception (28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6)) gives subject matter jurisdiction. The requirement that the agreement concern "a subject matter capable of settlement by arbitration under the laws of the United States" does not require a commercial nexus with the United States. An award covered by the New York Convention meets that requirement. pp. 15–19
2. The Court assumed, without deciding, that Antrix is a "person" protected by the Fifth Amendment and that a reasonableness test applies. On that basis, jurisdiction over Antrix is reasonable, applying the three factors in Fuld v. PLO. The United States has a strong interest in enforcing its treaty obligations. The burden on Antrix, a sophisticated entity backed by India, is reasonable. Devas has no other forum in which to reach Antrix's US assets. pp. 19–22
3. Antrix could not claim unfair surprise. India is a party to the New York Convention, and Antrix agreed that an award could be "entered in any court of competent jurisdiction." p. 22
4. Forum non conveniens does not apply to an action to confirm a foreign award under the New York Convention. Articles III and V make recognition mandatory, subject only to the listed grounds, and forum inconvenience is not one of them. The procedural clause in Article III does not allow a State to refuse enforcement altogether. The Court followed the D.C. Circuit and the dissent in Figueiredo rather than the Second Circuit majority. This was a question of first impression in the circuit. pp. 22–26
5. No foreign court can attach US assets, so no adequate alternative forum exists. Even if the doctrine applied, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to dismiss. p. 25; p. 26 n. 10
6. The concurrent memorandum disposition, as summarised in the opinion, affirms the confirmation of the award and the registration of the judgment as to Devas Multimedia America, Inc. It reverses and vacates in part on the Shareholder Intervenors' standing to register the judgment, and remands for the district court to decide the effect of the Indian courts' later set-aside of the award. p. 5; p. 26

Procedural history

1. 28 January 2005Antrix and Devas sign the Agreement for the lease of S-band space segment capacity.
2. 25 February 2011Antrix terminates the Agreement.
3. 1 July 2011Devas commences ICC arbitration.
4. 14 September 2015ICC tribunal finds wrongful repudiation and issues the USD 562.5 million award.
5. 2018Devas petitions to confirm the award in the Western District of Washington. The district court denies Antrix's motion to dismiss and confirms the award. The Indian courts later set the award aside.
6. 1 August 2023The Ninth Circuit reverses for lack of minimum contacts, applying then-controlling circuit precedent.
7. 2025The US Supreme Court reverses in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., 605 U.S. 223, and remands for Antrix's alternative arguments.
8. 10 March 2026Argued and submitted in San Francisco on remand.
9. 12 August 2026Ninth Circuit opinion affirms on jurisdiction and forum non conveniens; concurrent memorandum disposition affirms in part, reverses and vacates in part, and remands.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Eric D. Miller Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Lucy H. Koh Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (author of the opinion)
• Donald W. Molloy Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (District Judge, District of Montana, sitting by designation)

For the claimant

Baker Botts LLP · King & Spalding LLP · Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP · McNaul Ebel Nawrot & Helgren PLLC

For the respondent

Crowell & Moring LLP · Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson PS · Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP · Sidley Austin LLP

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
• FSIA arbitration exception
• New York Convention
• confirmation of award
• forum non conveniens
• personal jurisdiction
• Fifth Amendment due process
• minimum contacts
• commercial nexus
• set-aside
• enforcement
• sovereign assets
• S-band spectrum
• satellite lease
• ISRO
• Antrix
• Devas
• Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.