Resolving Intellectual Property Disputes in Indian Startups through Arbitration: A Viable Alternative to Litigation.
This article is written by Manish Kumar, pursuing B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) from KES Shri Jayantilal H Patel Law College, Mumbai.
The rapid evolution of the Indian startup ecosystem has driven a structural shift toward a technology-intensive, innovation-centric economy. Emerging ventures are increasingly reliant on their intellectual property (IP) portfolios, which frequently comprise the primary basis for company valuations, market differentiation, and venture capital funding. However, the commercial exploitation of these intangible assets inherently exposes startups to legal disputes.
While traditional civil courts present significant financial barriers, systemic delays, and procedural gridlocks, compounded by the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), commercial arbitration emerges as a compelling alternative. Historically, the primary legal hurdle to adopting arbitration for IP disputes in India has been the question of "objective arbitrability" under the rights in rem vs. rights in personam doctrine.
This literature review evaluates the viability of commercial arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for resolving IP disputes in Indian startups. It analyzes historical and modern judicial developments, culminating in the definitive Supreme Court decision in K. Mangayarkarasi v. N.J. Sundaresan (2025), which affirmed the arbitrability of contract-centric IP disputes.
Furthermore, it examines the procedural efficiencies introduced by modern institutional frameworks, such as the Third Edition Arbitration Rules of the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) released in May 2025, and provides strategic contracting models to safeguard startup innovation.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this research article, submitted by students and/or other contributors in their personal capacity, are solely those of the author(s) and do not, in any manner whatsoever, reflect or represent the views, opinions, advice, or official position of PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP (“PACTEDGE”). PACTEDGE makes no representations or warranties, whether express or implied, as to the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or currency of any facts, data, analysis, or legal propositions contained herein and shall not, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, be liable for any loss, injury, damage, or consequence arising directly or indirectly from any reliance placed upon this publication. The entire contents of this research article, including without limitation its text, structure, compilation, selection and arrangement of material, are and shall remain the exclusive intellectual property of PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP, protected under applicable copyright and other intellectual property laws. No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, adapted, published, communicated to the public, distributed, or otherwise made available in any form or by any means, whether electronic, digital, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, nor shared or reposted on any platform or medium, without the prior written consent of PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP; any unauthorised use shall constitute infringement and may attract civil and/or criminal consequences, without prejudice to any other rights or remedies available to PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP in law or equity.
Comments