Ninth Circuit Issues Guidance on Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s Arbitration Exception

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has provided additional guidance on the interplay between the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (FSIA) arbitration exception and traditional personal jurisdictional rules and related doctrines, including the forum non conveniens doctrine.

Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. entered an agreement with Antrix Corp. Ltd., which is the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation. Antrix agreed to build two satellites and lease a portion of the radio-frequency spectrum on each to Devas. In exchange, Devas agreed to pay for the construction of the satellites and leasing fees. Antrix terminated the agreement after making a policy decision not to provide radio-frequency spectrum for commercial activities. Devas initiated arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce, which held that Antrix had wrongfully terminated the deal.

Devas petitioned to confirm the award. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted Devas’ petition, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the FSIA required traditional minimum contacts that Antrix lacked and that jurisdiction was therefore lacking. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the “FSIA imposes no minimum contacts requirement beyond its enumerated exceptions.”

On remand, the Ninth Circuit addressed Antrix’s remaining arguments. It held that (1) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA’s arbitration exception; (2) the exercise of jurisdiction over Antrix was consistent with the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause; and (3) forum non conveniens “does not apply in an action to confirm a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention and, in any event, did not require dismissal.” More specifically, the Ninth Circuit noted that the FSIA’s “arbitration exception” “waives immunity for suits to confirm arbitration awards.” The Ninth Circuit explained that exercising jurisdiction did not offend due process because (1) “the United States has a substantial interest as the forum sovereign”; (2) “the burden on Antrix” of appearing in the United States was reasonable — Antrix “is a sophisticated party that, through its parent government, India, commands substantial resources” and Antrix did not argue that “litigating in the United States imposes any undue hardship”; and (3) Devas’ “interest in obtaining relief is substantial” because “Devas has no alternative forum outside the United States” to execute on Antrix’s property in the United States.

Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., Nos. 20-36024, 22-35085, 22-35103 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2026).