US court upholds confirmation of Devas’ $562.5 million arbitral award against ISRO owned Antrix

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld the confirmation of a $562.5 million arbitral award obtained by Devas Multimedia against Antrix Corporation, the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).

A Bench of Circuit Judges Eric D Miller and Lucy H Koh and District Judge Donald W Molloy ruled that American courts had jurisdiction to enforce the award against Antrix, a corporation wholly owned by the Indian government.

The opinion was authored by Judge Koh.

According to law firm Baker Botts, which represented Devas, the award is now worth more than $2 billion with accrued interest.

The dispute arose from a 2005 agreement under which Antrix agreed to build, launch and operate two satellites and lease 70 MHz of India’s S-band spectrum to Devas. Antrix terminated the agreement in 2011 after the Indian government decided against providing an S-band orbital slot for commercial activities.

Devas then initiated arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). In September 2015, a three-member tribunal held that Antrix had wrongfully repudiated the agreement and awarded Devas $562.5 million along with interest.

Devas approached a federal district court in Washington in 2018 for confirmation of the award under the New York Convention. The district court confirmed the award, prompting Antrix to appeal.

The Ninth Circuit initially ruled in Antrix’s favour after finding that it lacked sufficient contacts with the United States. However, the US Supreme Court reversed that decision in 2025. It held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) did not require proof of “minimum contacts” beyond the requirements contained in the statute’s exceptions to sovereign immunity.

On remand, the Ninth Circuit held that the FSIA’s arbitration exception gave the district court subject-matter jurisdiction. It rejected Antrix’s argument that the underlying commercial transaction was required to have a connection with the United States.

“The arbitration exception contains no comparable language requiring a commercial nexus with the United States, and we will not supply it,” the Court said.

The Court also ruled that exercising personal jurisdiction over Antrix was reasonable and consistent with the Fifth Amendment.

On a question of first impression for the Ninth Circuit, the Bench held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens does not apply to proceedings for confirmation of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention. It reasoned that inconvenience of the forum was not among the grounds on which enforcement could be refused under the Convention. Further, only an American court could attach assets located in the United States.

However, the Court directed the district court to consider the effect of Indian courts subsequently setting aside the award.

It also reversed the ruling allowing three Mauritian shareholders of Devas to register the judgment, after finding that they lacked standing. The registration of the judgment in favour of Devas Multimedia America Inc was affirmed.

Devas was represented by Baker Botts lawyers Christopher Tutunjian and Aaron Streett.

Antrix was represented by lawyers from Crowell & Moring, Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt & Mosle and Sidley Austin.

[Read Judgment]