5/13/2020 Arbitrability of IPR Disputes in India: 34(2)(B) or Not to Be - Kluwer Arbitration Blog

Kluwer Arbitration Blog

(http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/)
(http://www.wolterskluwer.com)
 (https://www.facebook.com/wolterskluwer)  (https://twitter.com/wolters_kluwer)

 (https://www.linkedin.com/company/wolters-kluwer)

 (https://www.youtube.com/user/WoltersKluwerComms) 

A R B I T R A B I L I T Y ( H T T P : / / A R B I T R AT I O N B LO G . K LU W E R A R B I T R AT I O N . C O M / C AT E G O RY / A R B I T R A B I L I T Y / ) ,
I N D I A ( H T T P : / / A R B I T R AT I O N B LO G . K LU W E R A R B I T R AT I O N . C O M / C AT E G O RY / I N D I A / ) ,
I N T E L L E C T UA L P RO P E RT Y ( H T T P : / / A R B I T R AT I O N B LO G . K LU W E R A R B I T R AT I O N . C O M / C AT E G O RY / I N T E L L E C T UA L - P RO P E RT Y / ) ,
I N T E L L E C T UA L P RO P E RT Y R I G H T S ( H T T P : / / A R B I T R AT I O N B LO G . K LU W E R A R B I T R AT I O N . C O M / C AT E G O RY / I N T E L L E C T UA L - P RO P E RT Y-
RIGHTS/)

Arbitrability of IPR Disputes in India: 34(2)(B) or Not to Be

(http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/08/15/arbitrability-
of-ipr-disputes-in-india-342b-or-not-to-be/)
Vishakha Choudhar y (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/author/vishakha-choudhar y/) / August 15,
2019 (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/08/15/arbitrability-of-ipr-disputes-in-india-342b-or-
not-to-be/) / Leave a comment (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/08/15/arbitrability-of-ipr-
disputes-in-india-342b-or-not-to-be/#respond)
Young ICCA (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/arbitration/groups/?gID=791)

Introduction
The juxtaposition of laws that seemingly operate in different domains has posed a continual challenge to arbitration – conventionally,
in the form of concerns over arbitrability of disputes. Here, arbitrability connotes the notion that a dispute, by its nature, is capable of
being adjudicated beyond public fora, through a private tribunal chosen by parties. This ‘objective’ arbitrability differs from
‘subjective’ arbitrability, which is the scope of arbitrable disputes as defined in an arbitration agreement. This post deals with
objective arbitrability. In the context of intellectual property rights (‘IPR’) disputes, concerns of objective arbitrability stem from the
impact arbitral awards may have on non-consenting parties. Owing to insufficient legislative engagement with this issue, judicial
position on arbitrability of IPR disputes in India remains unsettled.

The notion of objective arbitrability in India

The significance of objective arbitrability is set forth in Section 34(2)(b)(i) of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
identical to Article 34(2)(b)(i) of the UNCITRAL Model Law. It stipulates that awards contemplating a non-arbitrable subject matter
may be set aside.
The Supreme Court first shed light on the implications of Section 34(2)(b) in Booz Allen and Hamilton v. SBI Finance
(https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188958994/) (‘Booz Allen’). The Court emphasised that the scope of arbitrable disputes must be
limited to those concerning ‘rights in personam’ or personal rights enforceable against certain individuals. A contrario, ‘rights in rem’
exercisable against the world at large were excluded from the scope of arbitrable disputes. Based on this rationale, the Court
identified an illustrative list of non-arbitrable disputes: criminal offences, disputes concerning family laws, insolvency and winding up,
testamentary matters and tenancy disputes. Pertinently, the Court in Booz Allen cautioned against a strict application of the rem –
personam distinction by famously clarifying:

This is not however a rigid or inflexible rule. Disputes relating to subordinate rights in personam arising from rights in rem
have always been considered to be arbitrable.

Further, it also excluded from the scope of arbitration in India, disputes arising from statutes that vest exclusive jurisdiction in
specified courts.

The curious case of intellectual property rights

arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/08/15/arbitrability-of-ipr-disputes-in-india-342b-or-not-to-be/ 1/10
5/13/2020 Arbitrability of IPR Disputes in India: 34(2)(B) or Not to Be - Kluwer Arbitration Blog

A case-by-case approach by the Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court in Eros International v. Telemax Links India Pvt. Ltd. (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/148880955/)
(‘Telemax’) directly addressed arbitrability of IPR (Copyright) disputes. The legal provision at issue was Section 62(1) of the Indian
Copyright Act, 1957 (https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/in/in107en.pdf) , which states:

Every suit or other civil proceeding arising under this Chapter in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work or
the infringement of any other right conferred by this Act shall be instituted in the district court having jurisdiction.

According to the Court, this provision only precludes infringement claims from being brought before a court hierarchically lower than
the competent district court. Section 62(1) was not, however, intended to oust the jurisdiction of an arbitration tribunal. Based on this
preliminary finding, the Court proceeded to analyse the nature of infringement claims. It noted that while an infringement action
arising from a contractual relationship may succeed against a certain defendant, this decision would not necessitate the success of
such action against a different defendant. Thus, while the overlying copyright is a ‘right in rem’ enforceable against the world at
large, the specific contractual dispute over its infringement is a ‘right in personam’ action against a particular individual. Accordingly,
the dispute was held to be arbitrable. Without explicitly referencing the Booz Allen obiter, the Court followed the Supreme Court’s
reasoning – that is, it refrained from summarily dismissing questions of arbitrability without assessing the nature of rights at issue.
The Court’s finding has been positively received in select subsequent decisions. (See e.g., Deepak Thorat S/o Dinkar Thorat v.
Vidli Restaurant Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 7704 (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2033826/) .) Its decision also aligns with the
literal approach to the interpretation of statutes followed by Indian courts. (See e.g., Swedish Match AB & Anr. v. Securities and
Exchange Board of India & Anr. (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64332/) , (2004) 11 SCC 641.)
The Bombay High Court continued to heed the Supreme Court’s warning in subsequent decisions such as Indian Performing Rights
Society v. Entertainment Networks, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5893 (‘IPRS’). Unlike the Telemax case, the Court in IPRS was tasked
with deciding whether averments of the Claimant’s right to claim royalties in relation to broadcasting of a sound recording were
arbitrable. The arbitrator decided against the need to obtain a license from the Claimant, differentiating between rights held in
original music works and in sound recordings. However, the Court on review found that by virtue of this decision:

[IPRS’s] …rights as a licensor were destructed in the impugned award not only against the claimant, but also against the
world at large.

By distinguishing the case at hand from Telemax based on the implications of the relief granted for third parties, the Court clarified
that arbitrating the case would have implications for IPRS’s rights to collect royalties on their works from third parties as well.
Moreover, it would also affect several other copyright owners in the underlying musical works who were not parties to the arbitration
in question. Therefore, the award was rightly set aside.

Disregarding the Booz Allen caveat

Unfortunately, similar analyses were absent from other decisions on arbitrability of IPR disputes. In Impact Metals v. MSR India
(https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97700341/) (‘Impact Metals’), the Hyderabad High Court failed to consider the nature of the
remedies or rights at issue to assess such arbitrability. Instead, it summarily based its decision on the illustrative list in Booz Allen,
which did not expressly exclude IPR from arbitable subject-matters. This decision sets a dangerous precedent for arbitration of
‘rights in rem’ by failing to account for the implications this might have on rights of third parties. Further, the confidentiality of arbitral
awards may prejudice interested third parties against whom such erga omnes legal decisions are rendered.
The Ayyaswamy v. A Paramsivam (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/180680303/) (‘Ayyaswamy’) decision paved way for further
confusion. This Supreme Court decision declared patents, trademarks, and copyright disputes to be non-arbitrable in an obiter. The
case is often viewed in academic discourse as a complete limitation on the arbitration of IPR disputes in India. Notably, this obiter is
a ‘general’ remark by the Court, not rendered in relation to any particular set of facts. To rely on this generic statement in ignorance
of the clarification made in the Booz Allen decision would be imprudent.
The Lifestyle Equities CV v. QD Seatoman Designs Pvt. Ltd (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159931016/) . decision provides
some clarification. The Court reasoned that the list of ‘non-arbitrable disputes’ in the Ayyaswamy judgment merely reiterates
scholarly opinion and does not constitute the Apex Court’s ratio. Further, it went on to apply the Booz Allen caveat to reiterate that
disputes relating to patent use and infringement (here, a right of ‘better usage’ vis-à-vis the other party) concern ‘rights in personam’,
and therefore, are arbitrable.

Conclusion
IPR form a crucial constituent of commercial transactions and are comprised in the bundle of rights therein. To ipso facto declare
them non-arbitrable would upset the purpose of the Arbitration Act, impair the efficacy of commercial arbitration and disregard party
autonomy. Thus, the inflexible stance adopted in the Impact Metals and Ayyaswamy decisions is misconceived.

arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/08/15/arbitrability-of-ipr-disputes-in-india-342b-or-not-to-be/ 2/10
5/13/2020 Arbitrability of IPR Disputes in India: 34(2)(B) or Not to Be - Kluwer Arbitration Blog

Admittedly, it is important to keep ‘rights in rem’ beyond the reach of arbitration. In light of the progressive reforms of the 1996 Act in
recent years, this could be achieved through legislative clarifications. For example, both the United States of America and
Switzerland permit the arbitration of patent infringement claims, provided that the consequent award is registered with the relevant
patent authority or board. (See 35 United States Code (U.S.C) § 294(d) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/294) ;
Article 193.2, Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law
(https://www.unine.ch/files/live/sites/florence.guillaume/files/shared/publications/pil_act_1987_as_from_1_1_2017.pdf) ,
1989.) This simultaneously safeguards the complementary interests of effective arbitration of IPR disputes and public interest in
‘rights in rem’. A similar legislative provision could be emulated in India. Further, the ‘arbitrable’ aspects of intellectual property could
be clarified via legislation, as is the case in Hong Kong. (See Part 11A, Hong Kong Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017
[Ord. No. 5 of 2017] (https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/hk/hk212en.pdf) .) Clarifications concerning the scope of
counterclaims permissible in IPR arbitrations (such as express exclusion of counterclaims challenging the validity or registration of
IPR) are also crucial. Swift action here is essential to set ghosts of the past to rest.

________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, please subscribe here
(http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/newsletter/). To submit a proposal for a blog post, please consult our Editorial
Guidelines (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/editorial-guidelines/).

(http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/?utm_source=arbitrationblog&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=free-demo)

(http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/08/15/arbitrability-of-ipr-disputes-in-india-342b-or-not-to-be/?
print=pdf)
(http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/08/15/arbitrability-of-ipr-disputes-in-india-342b-or-not-to-be/?
print=print)

पसंद कर 2 Tweet Share SAVE EMAIL (MAIL

BE&BODY=HT

 PREVIOUS ARTI CLE NEXT ARTI CLE

(HTTP://ARBI TRATI ONBLOG .KLUWERARBI T RAT ION.COM/ 2019/ 08/ 14/ IT S -A- (HTTP://ARBI TRATI ONBLOG .KLUWERARBI T RAT ION.COM/ 2019/ 08/ 16/ INT E RVIE WS
BEAUTIFUL- DAY- I N- THE-NEIGHBORHOOD- AN-OVE RVIE W-OF-ARBIT RAT ION-LA W- WITH-OUR- EDI TORS- PERSPECTIVES-ON-ARBIT RAT ION-IN-IRAN-FROM-OVE IS -
IN-THE-U-S- AND- CANADA/) REZVANIAN- DI RECTOR-OF-THE-TEHRAN-RE GIONAL-ARBIT RAT ION-CE NT RE / ) 

It’s a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood? An Overview of
Arbitration Law in the U.S. and Canada
(http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/08/14/its-a-
beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-an-overview-of-arbitration-law-
in-the-u-s-and-canada/)
ERIC MORGAN (HTTP://ARBITRATIONBLOG.KLUWERARBITRAT I ON . C OM/ AU TH OR / ER I C -
MORGAN/) (OSLER HOSKIN & HARCOURT LLP (HTTP://WWW.OSLER.COM)) AND CHARLES
('CHIP') B. ROSENBERG
(HTTP://ARBITRATIONBLOG.KLUWERARBITRAT I ON . C OM/ AU TH OR / C H AR L ES-C H I P-B-
ROSENBERG/) (KING & SPALDING (HTTPS://WWW.KSLAW.COM/?LOCALE=EN))/AUGUST
14, 2019
(HTTP://ARBITRATIONBLOG.KLUWERARBITRAT I ON . C OM/ 2 0 1 9 / 0 8 / 1 5 / AR BI TR ABI L I TY-OF-
IPR-DISPUTES- IN- INDIA-342B-OR-NOT-TO-BE/)
Interviews with Our Editors: Perspectives on Arbitration in Iran
from Oveis Rezvanian, Director of the Tehran Regional
Arbitration Centre
(http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/08/16/interview
with-our-editors-perspectives-on-arbitration-in-iran-from-oveis-
rezvanian-director-of-the-tehran-regional-arbitration-centre/)
MIHAELA MARAVELA ( ASSOCIATE EDITOR)
(HTTP://ARBITRATIONBLOG.KLUWERARBITRAT I ON . C OM/ AU TH OR / MI H AEL A-MAR AVEL A/ )
(MIHAELA MARAVELA LAW OFFICE)/AUGUST 16, 2019
(HTTP://ARBITRATIONBLOG.KLUWERARBITRAT I ON . C OM/ 2 0 1 9 / 0 8 / 1 5 / AR BI TR ABI L I TY-OF-
IPR-DISPUTES- IN- INDIA-342B-OR-NOT-TO-BE/)

Leave a Reply
YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHE D . REQUIRED FIELDS ARE MARKED *

arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/08/15/arbitrability-of-ipr-disputes-in-india-342b-or-not-to-be/ 3/10
5/13/2020 Arbitrability of IPR Disputes in India: 34(2)(B) or Not to Be - Kluwer Arbitration Blog
COMMENT

NAME *

EMAIL *

WEBSITE

SAVE MY NAME, EMAIL, AND WEBSITE IN T HIS BROWS E R FOR T HE NE XT T IME I CO MME N T.

POST COMMENT

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed (https://akismet.com/privacy/).

GET BLOG POSTS IN YOUR INBOX!

Email SUBSCRIBE

BROWSE CATEGORIES

by Jurisdiction... by Category... by Contributor... by Affiliate...

by Date...

(http://www.kluwerlaw.com/covid-contracts/?utm_source=arbitrationblog&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=COVID-

contracts)

(http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/born?utm_source=arbitrationblog&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=Born-Lectures-

Covid19)

arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/08/15/arbitrability-of-ipr-disputes-in-india-342b-or-not-to-be/ 4/10
5/13/2020 Arbitrability of IPR Disputes in India: 34(2)(B) or Not to Be - Kluwer Arbitration Blog
Construction Arbitration in Central and Eastern Europe: Contemporary Issues
(https://lrus.wolterskluwer.com/store/product/construction-arbitration-in-central-and-eastern-europe-
contemporary-issues/)
Edited by Crina Baltag & Cosmin Vasile
€ 167

EDITORS & CONTRIBUTORS

Roger Alford (General Editor) (http://law.nd.edu/people/faculty-and-administration/teaching-and-research-faculty/roger-p-alford/)

Notre Dame Law School (http://law.nd.edu/)

(http://arbitrati
alford/)

Crina Baltag (Editor) (https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-crina-baltag-44139266/)

Stockholm University (https://www.jurinst.su.se/english/)

(http://arbitrati
baltag/)

Kiran Nasir Gore (Associate Editor) (https://www.law.gwu.edu/kiran-n-gore)

The George Washington University Law School; Law Offices of Charles H. Camp (https://www.law.gwu.edu/kiran-n-gore)

(http://arbitrati
nasir-
gore/)

Benson Lim (Associate Editor) (http://linkedin.com/in/bensonlimbl)

Hogan Lovells (https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/lim-benson)

(http://arbitrati
lim/)

Mihaela Maravela (Associate Editor)

Mihaela Maravela Law Office
(http://arbitrati
maravela/)

Esmé Shirlow (Associate Editor) (https://law.anu.edu.au/people/esme-shirlow)

Australian National University (https://law.anu.edu.au/people/esme-shirlow) (http://arbitrati
shirlow/)

Ylli Dautaj (Assistant Editor)

University of Edinburgh (https://se.linkedin.com/in/yllidautaj)

(http://arbitrati
dautaj/)

Nicholas J. Diamond (Assistant Editor)

Georgetown Law (https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nicholas-j-diamond/)

(http://arbitrati
diamond/)

Maria Fanou (Assistant Editor)

European University Institute (https://www.eui.eu/)

(http://arbitrati
fanou/)

Janice Lee (Assistant Editor)

(https://www.linkedin.com/in/janicechualee/)

(http://arbitrati
lee/)

Mary Mitsi (Assistant Editor) (https://www.uwl.ac.uk/users/mary-mitsi)

University of West London (https://www.uwl.ac.uk/users/mary-mitsi)

(http://arbitrati
mitsi/)

Ashutosh Ray (Assistant Editor)

(http://arbitrati
ray/)

Arie C. Eernisse (Assistant Editor for East and Central Asia)

Shin & Kim (https://www.shinkim.com/eng/member/view/2262)

(http://arbitrati

arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/08/15/arbitrability-of-ipr-disputes-in-india-342b-or-not-to-be/ 5/10
5/13/2020 Arbitrability of IPR Disputes in India: 34(2)(B) or Not to Be - Kluwer Arbitration Blog
c-
eernisse/)

Theresa Tseung (Assistant Editor for East and Central Asia) (https://www.linkedin.com/in/theresatny/)

(http://arbitrati
tseung/)

Ana Carolina Dall'Agnol (Assistant Editor for Africa)

University of Oxford (https://www.linkedin.com/in/anacarolinadallagnol/)

(http://arbitrati
carolina-
dallagnol-
assistant-
editor-
for-
africa/)

Edward Hamilton (Assistant Editor for Africa)

Clyde & Co (https://www.clydeco.com/)
(http://arbitrati
hamilton-
assistant-
editor-
for-
africa/)

Sadaff Habib (Assistant Editor for Africa)

Beale & Company LLP (https://www.beale-law.com/people.php?person=137)

(http://arbitrati
habib/)

Deborah Loh (Assistant Editor for Southeast Asia)

(http://arbitrati
loh/)

Irene Mira (Assistant Editor for Southeast Asia)

Asian International Arbitration Centre (https://www.linkedin.com/in/irene-mira-9781ba87/)

(http://arbitrati
mira/)

Christine Sim (Assistant Editor for Southeast Asia)

(http://www.linkedin.com/in/sim-christine)

(http://arbitrati
sim/)

Piyush Prasad (Assistant Editor for South Asia)

Singapore International Arbitration Centre (http://www.siac.org.sg/2014-11-03-13-33-43/about-us/ceo-and-secretariat)

(http://arbitrati
prasad/)

Fabian Bonke (Assistant Editor for Europe)

Hogan Lovells (https://www.hoganlovells.com/)

(http://arbitrati
bonke-
assistant-
editor-
for-
europe/)

Deyan Dragiev (Assistant Editor for Europe)

Colibra Insurance (https://www.linkedin.com/in/deyan-draguiev-47169114)

(http://arbitrati
draguiev/)

Boris Praštalo (Assistant Editor for Europe) (https://www.linkedin.com/in/boris-prastalo-210071186)

International University of Sarajevo (https://www.ius.edu.ba/)

(http://arbitrati
prastalo/)

Dalal Al Houti (Assistant Editor for the MENA Region)

(http://arbitrati
al-houti/)

Zahra Rose Khawaja (Assistant Editor for the MENA Region) (https://www.dentons.com/en/zahra-rose-khawaja)
Dentons & Co, Dubai (https://www.dentons.com/)

(http://arbitrati
rose-
khawaja/)

arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/08/15/arbitrability-of-ipr-disputes-in-india-342b-or-not-to-be/ 6/10
5/13/2020 Arbitrability of IPR Disputes in India: 34(2)(B) or Not to Be - Kluwer Arbitration Blog
Mohamed H. Negm (Assistant Editor for the MENA Region)
Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority, Ministry of Justice and University of Geneva (https://www.linkedin.com/in/mohamed-h-negm-8b088923/)

(http://arbitrati
h-negm/)

Giorgio Sassine (Assistant Editor for Canada and the United States)
Severson & Werson (https://www.severson.com/)

(http://arbitrati
sassine/)

Enrique Jaramillo (Assistant Editor for Latin America)

IHS Markit (https://www.linkedin.com/in/enrique-jaramillo-a128205a/)

(http://arbitrati

Daniela Páez-Salgado (Assistant Editor for Latin America) (http://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/people/daniela-paez)

Herbert Smith Freehills (http://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com)

(http://arbitrati
paez/)

Jawad Ahmad (http://sg.linkedin.com/in/jahmad1)

Mayer Brown LLP (https://www.mayerbrown.com/people/jawad-ahmad/)
(http://arbitrati
ahmad/)

Gordon Blanke
Blanke Arbitration LLC (http://blankearbitration.com/)

(http://arbitrati
blanke/)

Gary Born (http://www.wilmerhale.com/gary_born/)

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (http://www.wilmerhale.com/)

(http://arbitrati
born/)

Nikos Lavranos
NL-Investmentconsulting (https://www.nl-investmentconsulting.com/)

(http://arbitrati
lavranos/)

Michael McIlwrath
Baker Hughes (https://www.bakerhughes.com)

(http://arbitrati
mcilwrath/)

Matthias Scherer (http://www.lalive.ch/e/lawyers/index.php?lawyer=163)

Editor in Chief, ASA Bulletin; LALIVE (http://www.lalive.ch/)

(http://arbitrati
scherer/)

Maxi Scherer (https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/people/maxi-scherer)

General Editor, Journal of International Arbitration; WilmerHale & Queen Mary University of London

(http://arbitrati

Georg von Segesser

von Segesser Law Offices (http://www.vonsegesserlaw.com/)

(http://arbitrati
von-
segesser/)

Wei Sun (http://www.zhonglun.com)

Zhong Lun Law Firm (http://www.zhonglun.com)

(http://arbitrati
sun/)

Patricia Živković (http://hu.linkedin.com/in/patriciazivkovic)

University of Aberdeen (https://www.abdn.ac.uk/)

(http://arbitrati
zivkovic/)

AFFILIATES

AfricArb (http://https://www.linkedin.com/company/afric-arb/)
Members

(http://arbitrati
gID=1107)

AIAC Young Practitioners Group (AIAC YPG) (http://https://www.aiac.world/ypg)

Members (http://arbitrati
gID=1068)

Arbitrator Intelligence (http://www.arbitratorintelligence.org/)

arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/08/15/arbitrability-of-ipr-disputes-in-india-342b-or-not-to-be/ 7/10
5/13/2020 Arbitrability of IPR Disputes in India: 34(2)(B) or Not to Be - Kluwer Arbitration Blog
Affiliates

(http://arbitrati
gID=517)

ArbitralWomen (http://www.arbitralwomen.org/)
Members (http://arbitrati
gID=513)

Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) (http://https://www.aiac.world/)

Affiliates
(http://arbitrati
gID=1067)

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP (http://www.blplaw.com/home)

Attorneys (http://arbitrati
gID=760)

Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) (http://www.ciarb.org/)

Members
(http://arbitrati
gID=926)

CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Center (http://www.cietachk.org)

Affiliates (http://arbitrati
gID=1106)

Clyde & Co. (http://www.clydeco.com/)

Attorneys (http://arbitrati
gID=514)

Finland Arbitration Institute (FAI) (http://arbitration.fi/)

Affiliates
(http://arbitrati
gID=774)

HK45 (http://www.hkiac.org/en/hkiac/hk45)
Members (http://arbitrati
gID=572)

Hogan Lovells (http://www.hoganlovells.com/)

Attorneys

(http://arbitrati
gID=518)

ICC Young Arbitrators Forum (YAF) (http://https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/professional-development/young-arbitrators-forum-yaf/)

Members

(http://arbitrati
gID=1248)

International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) (http://https://www.icdr.org/)

Members

(http://arbitrati
gID=1354)

Institute for Transnational Arbitration (ITA), Academic Council (http://www.cailaw.org/ita)

Members

(http://arbitrati
gID=511)

Jeantet (http://www.jeantet.fr/)
Attorneys
(http://arbitrati
gID=894)

KCAB Next (http://www.kcabinternational.or.kr/main.do)

Members
(http://arbitrati
gID=1108)

Linklaters (http://www.linklaters.com/)
Attorneys

(http://arbitrati
gID=668)

Schoenherr (http://www.schoenherr.eu/)
Attorneys (http://arbitrati
gID=637)

Shanghai International Arbitration Center (SHIAC) (http://www.shiac.org/SHIAC/index_E.aspx)

Members
(http://arbitrati
gID=1172)

Three Crowns LLP (http://www.threecrownsllp.com/)

Attorneys
(http://arbitrati
gID=573)

YIAG (http://www.lcia.org/Membership/YIAG/Young_International_Arbitration_Group.aspx)
Members (http://arbitrati

arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/08/15/arbitrability-of-ipr-disputes-in-india-342b-or-not-to-be/ 8/10
5/13/2020 Arbitrability of IPR Disputes in India: 34(2)(B) or Not to Be - Kluwer Arbitration Blog
gID=512)

YSIAC (http://www.siac.org.sg/ysiac/about-us)
Members (http://arbitrati
gID=515)

Young ICCA (http://www.youngicca.org/)

Members (http://arbitrati
gID=791)

Young ITA (http://www.cailaw.org/Institute-for-Transnational-Arbitration/Young-ITA/index.html)

Members

(http://arbitrati
gID=1018)

(https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/events/iii-oxford-symposium-comparative-international-commercial-arbitration)

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soafLup0rOA)

(http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/)

RELATED SITES
Kluwer Arbitration (http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/)
Kluwer Mediation Blog (http://kluwermediationblog.com/)
Author Portal (http://authors.wolterskluwerblogs.com/)

RSS FEEDS

Summary Feed (http://feeds.feedburner.com/KluwerArbitrationBlogExcerpt)

Article Feed (http://feeds.feedburner.com/KluwerArbitrationBlogFull)

|RECENT PUBLICATIONS

Termination of Intra-EU BITs: Commission and Most Member States Testing the Principle of Good Faith under International Law
(http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/05/13/termination-of-intra-eu-bits-commission-and-most-member-states-testing-the-principle-of-good-faith-
under-international-law/) May 13, 2020

Choice of Seat or Venue: Supreme Court of India Dithers (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/05/13/choice-of-seat-or-venue-supreme-court-of-

india-dithers/) May 13, 2020

Belt and Road and the International Financial Architecture (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/05/12/belt-and-road-and-the-international-

financial-architecture/) May 12, 2020

Corporate Restructuring in Investor-State Disputes: Can We Predict Tribunals’ Decisions? (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/05/11/corporate-

restructuring-in-investor-state-disputes-can-we-predict-tribunals-decisions/) May 11, 2020

Event Report: CISG and Arbitration, Old Friends Still Getting to Know Each Other (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/05/10/event-report-cisg-
and-arbitration-old-friends-still-getting-to-know-each-other/) May 10, 2020

RECENT COMMENTS

matthew Enilolobo on Is Online Dispute Resolution The Future of Alternative Dispute Resolution?
(http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/03/29/online-dispute-resolution-future-alternative-dispute-resolution/#comment-227129)

Abdulrasheed Badmus on Turkey and Libya: Full Protection and Security or (Gunboat) Diplomacy?
(http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/05/01/turkey-and-libya-full-protection-and-security-or-gunboat-diplomacy/#comment-227030)

Abdulrasheed Badmus on Africa Arbitration Academy Takes Over the Baton on Thought Leadership…Launches Virtual Hearing Protocol in Africa, for
Africa (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/05/07/africa-arbitration-academy-takes-over-the-baton-on-thought-leadershiplaunches-virtual-
hearing-protocol-in-africa-for-africa/#comment-227013)

Alexander Bedrosyan on The Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration: Noteworthy or Not Worthy for Victims of Human Rights Violations?
(http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/05/05/the-hague-rules-on-business-and-human-rights-arbitration-noteworthy-or-not-worthy-for-victims-of-
human-rights-violations/#comment-226891)

Michael Mcilwrath on Interviews of Our Editors: “What Does Kluwer Arbitration Blog Mean to You?”
(http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/05/03/interviews-of-our-editors-what-does-kluwer-arbitration-blog-mean-to-you/#comment-226888)

TAKE THE AI QUESTIONNAIRE

arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/08/15/arbitrability-of-ipr-disputes-in-india-342b-or-not-to-be/ 9/10
5/13/2020 Arbitrability of IPR Disputes in India: 34(2)(B) or Not to Be - Kluwer Arbitration Blog

(http://www.arbitratorintelligence.org/)

ABOUT US CONTACT
About Kluwer Arbitration Blog (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/about/) General Information
Kluwer Arbitration (http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/)
Kluwer Law International (http://www.kluwerlaw.com)
Other Online Products (http://www.kluwerlaw.com/catalogue/)

LEGAL POLICY (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/contact/)

User Agreement and Disclaimer (http://www.kluwerlaw.com/user-agreement/)

Privacy and Cookie Statement (http://www.kluwerlaw.com/privacy-policy)
Editorial Guidelines (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/editorial-guidelines/)
Editorial Policy (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/editorial-policy/)

BACK TO TOP 

arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/08/15/arbitrability-of-ipr-disputes-in-india-342b-or-not-to-be/ 10/10