Delhi High Court Orders Blocking of Sci-Hub and Mirror Sites in Landmark Copyright Case

In a major ruling that could reshape access to academic research in India, the Delhi High Court has ordered the immediate blocking of Sci-Hub, Sci-Net, and their mirror websites for violating copyright laws. The decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed by leading academic publishers Elsevier, Wiley, and the American Chemical Society.

For an uninitiated, Sci-Hub is a free online platform that provides access to millions of academic research papers by bypassing paywalls set by publishers. Founded in 2011 by Alexandra Elbakyan, a researcher from Kazakhstan, Sci-Hub was created to challenge the high cost of accessing scholarly literature, especially for students and researchers in developing countries.

Court Ruling and Enforcement

The court directed the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to block access to the infringing websites within 72 hours. The blocked domains include:

• Sci-Hub: www.sci-hub.se, www.sci-hub.st
• Sci-Net: www.sci-net.xyz
• Associated Mirrors: Multiple alternate URLs used to bypass restrictions

Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that Sci-Hub founder Alexandra Elbakyan had violated a 2020 undertaking not to distribute copyrighted content from the plaintiffs. The court found her prima facie guilty of contempt, noting that both Sci-Hub and Sci-Net were under her control despite claims to the contrary.

Background of the Case

The lawsuit, initiated in 2020, accused Sci-Hub of enabling large-scale piracy by offering free access to paywalled journals such as The Lancet, Cell, and Journal of the American Chemical Society. Elbakyan had previously agreed not to upload or share content from these publishers, but the court found continued violations through Sci-Net and mirror sites.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for December 1, 2025, where further action on the contempt charge may be considered.

Impact on Academia and Access

While publishers hailed the ruling as a victory for intellectual property rights, the decision has sparked concern among students, researchers, and educators who rely on Sci-Hub for access to expensive scholarly articles.

This ruling reinforces the enforceability of copyright law in India, even against foreign nationals operating digital platforms, said a legal expert familiar with the case.

What’s Next?

The blocking order sets a precedent for how India may handle similar cases involving digital piracy and academic access. It also raises questions about the future of open access initiatives and the affordability of scientific knowledge in developing countries.

Google Challenges NCLAT Verdict in Supreme Court Over Android Ecosystem Abuse

Google has officially appealed to the Supreme Court of India against the March 2025 ruling by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which had partially upheld the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) findings that the tech giant abused its dominance in the Android ecosystem, reported Bar & Bench. 

Key Allegations Upheld by NCLAT

Unfair Play Store policies: Google was found to have imposed mandatory use of Google Play Billing System (GPBS) on app developers, while exempting its own apps like YouTube.

Promotion of Google Pay: The tribunal concluded that Google leveraged its dominance in licensable smartphone OS and app store markets to promote Google Pay, violating Section 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act.

Unfair conditions on developers: Mandatory use of GPBS was deemed discriminatory under Section 4(2)(a)(i).

Penalty Recalibration

• Original CCI fine: ₹936.44 crore
• Revised by NCLAT: ₹216.69 crore, based only on Play Store-specific revenues

Procedural Twist

• On May 1, NCLAT issued a clarification reinstating two key directives:
• Google must disclose data policies.
• Google must not leverage billing data for competitive advantage.

What’s Next?

Google filed its appeal on July 21, 2025.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case soon, potentially reshaping how digital platforms are regulated in India.

Devas Vs. ISRO's Antrix: The Satellite Deal That Sparked a Billion-Dollar Legal War

The US Supreme Court has recently ruled that the $1.29 billion lawsuit against ISRO-owned Antrix Corporation can proceed in American courts, marking a significant escalation in the long-running legal dispute between India and Devas Multimedia. The case revolves around a 2005 satellite deal between Antrix and Devas, which was abruptly canceled in 2011 by the Indian government over national security concerns.

The Deal and Its Collapse

In 2005, under the leadership of ISRO Chairman G. Madhavan Nair and Antrix Corporation Managing Director K.R. Sridhar Murthy, Antrix signed a contract with Devas Multimedia to provide satellite-based broadband services by leasing S-band transponder capacity on the GSAT-6 and GSAT-6A satellites. At the time, the Minister of Space was the-then Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, while Dayanidhi Maran held the Communications & IT portfolio.

However, by 2011, the deal was scrapped amid concerns about spectrum undervaluation and potential security risks. ISRO Chairman K. Radhakrishnan and Communications & IT Minister Kapil Sibal were in office when the cancellation decision was made. The termination coincided with India's 2G telecom spectrum controversy, raising questions about transparency and policy inconsistencies.

Devas Multimedia was founded in 2004 and was led by Dr. M.G. Chandrasekhar, a former Scientific Secretary at ISRO. Another key founder associated with the company is Ramachandran Viswanathan. The company was based in Bangalore, India, and aimed to provide satellite broadband services across the country.

Devas also attracted investment from Deutsche Telekom, which acquired a 17% stake for about $75 million. 

Legal Battle in US Courts

Following the Antrix-Devas deal cancellation, Devas Multimedia initiated arbitration, claiming that India's decision was unjustified and amounted to contractual breach. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) later ordered Devas’ liquidation in 2021, a ruling upheld by the Indian Supreme Court. Yet, Devas pursued enforcement of the arbitral award across multiple jurisdictions.

In 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit, asserting that Antrix lacked sufficient ties to the US under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). However, in a unanimous 2025 Supreme Court ruling, US justices determined that jurisdiction exists under FSIA when an immunity exception applies and service is proper—allowing the case to proceed.

Implications for India’s Arbitration Strategy

The ruling could shape how India navigates international arbitration, influencing future disputes involving state-owned enterprises and sovereign immunity claims. With global companies increasingly challenging Indian regulatory decisions in foreign courts, the case underscores India's need for a more cohesive legal strategy to protect its interests on the international stage.

As India moves forward, the lawsuit raises critical questions about how sovereign decisions intersect with global business agreements —and whether government-backed enterprises can shield themselves from costly legal battles abroad.

Global Jeans Giant Sued Local Manufacturer, Then Hired Them!

Justice Manmohan, a Judge of Supreme Court of India and a former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, recently shared an intriguing case where a global jeans brand sued a small Indian manufacturer for counterfeiting. Initially, the brand secured an injunction against the manufacturer, but the court referred the matter to mediation.

During the mediation process, something unexpected happened—the brand recognized the high-quality craftsmanship of the manufacturer and, instead of pursuing litigation, decided to appoint them as an official supplier.

It turned out that the defendant was producing excellent quality jeans. The brand, which had been struggling to find a reliable supplier, ended up appointing the defendant as its official manufacturer, Justice Manmohan said.

This case highlights the transformative potential of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), particularly under India’s new Mediation Act. Justice Manmohan emphasized that mediation can not only resolve disputes but also create unexpected partnerships, turning adversaries into collaborators.

Beyond this case, he also discussed broader legal challenges, including standard essential patents (SEPs), AI regulation, and cross-border dispute resolution. His remarks underscore the need for adaptable legal frameworks in an era of rapid technological and commercial evolution.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to methods of resolving disputes outside traditional court litigation. It is designed to be faster, more cost-effective, and less adversarial than formal legal proceedings. ADR is widely used in commercial, civil, and even family disputes.

Common ADR Methods

1. Mediation – A neutral third party (mediator) helps disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable solution. The mediator does not impose a decision but facilitates dialogue.
2. Arbitration – A more formal process where an arbitrator (or panel) hears both sides and makes a binding decision, similar to a court ruling but often quicker.
3. Conciliation – Similar to mediation, but the conciliator plays a more active role in suggesting solutions.
4. Negotiation – The simplest form, where parties directly discuss and resolve their dispute without third-party intervention.
5. Lok Adalat (in India) – A unique ADR mechanism where disputes are settled in a community-based setting, often used for civil and minor criminal cases.

ADR is gaining traction globally, especially with the rise of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), which leverages technology to resolve conflicts remotely.

Source : BarAndBench.com

OpenAI Argues Public Data Isn't Commercial Use in Delhi HC Dispute

OpenAI recently argued before the Delhi High Court that using publicly available data to train ChatGPT does not constitute a commercial activity in itself. The case stems from a lawsuit filed by ANI Media, which alleges that OpenAI used its content without permission to train its AI models.

OpenAI's legal team contended that training a large language model (LLM) is a neutral activity that can be used for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. They emphasized that ChatGPT drives traffic to ANI's website, meaning no commercial harm is being caused to the news agency. Additionally, OpenAI argued that copyright law protects the expression of content, not the discovery of ideas and facts.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for May 16, where rejoinder arguments from ANI and other parties will be considered.

This case could have significant implications for AI training and copyright law in India.

What does copyright law say about using public data for AI training?

Copyright law varies across jurisdictions, but generally, it protects the expression of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. When it comes to AI training, the key legal questions revolve around whether scraping publicly available data constitutes copyright infringement and whether AI-generated outputs violate existing protections.

Key Considerations:

• Fair Use & Exceptions: Some countries, like the United States, allow limited use of copyrighted material under fair use, which considers factors like purpose, amount used, and market impact. However, this is often debated in AI contexts.
• Text & Data Mining (TDM) Exemptions: The European Union has introduced opt-out mechanisms for copyright holders, allowing AI developers to use publicly available data unless explicitly restricted.
• India’s Copyright Act: Section 52(1)(c) of India's Copyright Act provides exemptions for transient or incidental storage of copyrighted works, which some argue could apply to AI training..
• Legal Challenges: OpenAI is currently facing lawsuits, including one in the Delhi High Court, where ANI Media claims its content was used without permission. Courts are still determining whether AI training qualifies as a commercial activity or falls under research exemptions.

The debate is ongoing, and legal frameworks are evolving to address AI’s impact on copyright.

Denied by a Machine: Court Overrules Biometric Glitch Blocking Candidate’s Job

Biometric Verification Isn't Infallible: MP High Court Upholds Human Rights Over Tech Errors

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that a person's legal and fundamental rights cannot be denied due to biometric verification failure. Justice Subodh Abhyankar emphasized that a machine's inability to recognize someone shouldn't override their identity or rightful claims.

The case involved Vinod Kumar Meena, whose job application at Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) was rejected after biometric mismatches during onboarding. Meena had successfully cleared the examination, and his biometrics were verified during entry by Tata Consultancy Services (TCS). However, a mismatch occurred during exit verification. Despite being shortlisted, his biometric verification failed again during document verification, leading to his rejection.

The court observed that while biometric verification is essential for ensuring a fair selection process, it is not always reliable. Justice Abhyankar stated that procedure should serve justice, not dominate it, and ruled that a person's identity should not be determined solely by a machine. Instead, identity verification should be conducted using official documents like Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, driving license, and passport.

LIC was directed to verify Meena’s identity through his documents and issue his appointment letter within four weeks.

This ruling sets a significant precedent in cases where technical failures impact fundamental rights.

Similar case involving biometric technology was observed in the United Kingdom in a case involving the UK Home Office, where a biometric mismatch led to the wrongful denial of a visa application. The court ruled that biometric errors should not be the sole basis for rejecting an applicant and ordered a review using alternative identity verification methods.

In United States, a federal court ruled against a state agency that denied unemployment benefits due to facial recognition failures. The court emphasized that biometric systems are prone to errors and cannot override documentary evidence proving identity.

Paytm Gets Show Cause Notice from ED for Violating FEMA in Acquisition Deals

Paytm, operated by One97 Communications (OCL), has received a show cause notice from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). The notice involves transactions worth over ₹611 crore related to the acquisition of its subsidiaries, Little Internet Private Limited (LIPL) and Nearbuy India Private Limited (NIPL), between 2015 and 2019.

The alleged violations pertain to investment transactions involving ₹245 crore in OCL, ₹345 crore in LIPL, and ₹20.9 crore in NIPL. Paytm has stated that these compliance issues occurred before the subsidiaries were acquired by the company.

The notice has been issued to One97 Communications Limited, two of its acquired subsidiaries, LIPL and NIPL, and certain current and past Directors and officers of the company and its two subsidiaries, the Paytm's regulatory filing stated.

In the exchange filing, Paytm said,"Pursuant to Regulation 30 read with Schedule III of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 , we hereby inform that a show cause notice dated February 27, 2025 has been received by the Company on February 28, 2025 at 19.27 Hrs. from the Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India. This is in relation to alleged contraventions for the years 2015 to 2019 of certain provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (“FEMA”) by the Company, in relation to its acquisition of two subsidiaries namely Little Internet Private Limited (“LIPL”) and Nearbuy India Private Limited (“NIPL”) erstwhile Groupon, along with certain Directors & Officers."

"Certain alleged contraventions attributable to two acquired companies - Little Internet Private Limited and NearBuy India Private Limited - pertain to a period when these were not subsidiaries of the Company," the filing said.

Paytm said in a comment,

We are working towards resolving the notice in accordance with applicable laws and regulatory processes. The alleged FEMA contraventions are related to two acquired subsidiaries - Little and Nearbuy - with certain transactions from before they became part of Paytm.

There is no impact on Paytm's services, which continue to be fully operational and secure.

We remain committed to transparency and governance in all our business practices.

This development follows recent regulatory actions against Paytm, including a case settled with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and regulatory action from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) against Paytm Payments Bank.

Delhi HC Orders Amazon to Pay $39 Mn to Lifestyle Equities for Trademark Infringement

The Delhi High Court has ordered Amazon to pay $39 million (approximately ₹340 crore) in damages to Lifestyle Equities for infringing on its 'Beverly Hills Polo Club' trademark.

The court found that Amazon Technologies and others used a deceptively similar mark on apparel and other products sold on their platforms. The case was filed by Lifestyle Equities in 2020, and the court issued an interim injunction in October 2020, prohibiting Amazon and others from using the infringing logo.

The detailed order from Justice Prathiba M Singh is awaited.

The court issued an interim injunction in October 2020, prohibiting the use of the infringing logo and instructing Amazon Seller Services to remove the infringing merchandise. Amazon Technologies failed to appear in court and was prosecuted ex-parte.

Amazon Seller Services was removed from the list of parties as they agreed to remove any future listings of infringing products.

Cloudtail India, involved in selling the infringing products, acknowledged its liability and proposed a settlement. The court awarded damages of ₹4,78,484 against Cloudtail, representing 20% of the revenue from infringing products.

This ruling highlights the importance of trademark protection and the legal consequences of infringement.

Amazon has faced several trademark infringement cases over the years, and their responses have varied depending on the specifics of each case.

In 2017, Birkenstock, the German footwear company, accused Amazon of selling counterfeit products on its platform. In response, Birkenstock decided to stop selling its products on Amazon. Amazon took measures to improve its anti-counterfeiting efforts, including enhancing its Brand Registry program to help brands protect their intellectual property.

In 2020, Salvatore Ferragamo, the Italian luxury brand, filed a lawsuit against Amazon for selling counterfeit Ferragamo products. Amazon worked with Ferragamo to identify and remove counterfeit listings and took legal action against counterfeiters. This collaboration led to the seizure of counterfeit goods and the shutdown of counterfeit operations.

In 2019, Nike decided to stop selling its products directly on Amazon, citing concerns over counterfeit goods and unauthorized sellers. Amazon responded by enhancing its anti-counterfeiting measures and working with brands to improve the authenticity of products sold on its platform.

In general, Amazon has taken steps to address trademark infringement by improving its anti-counterfeiting measures, collaborating with brands to remove counterfeit listings, and taking legal action against counterfeiters. However, the effectiveness of these measures has been a subject of ongoing debate and scrutiny.

Cognizant Accuses Infosys of Trade Secret Theft Related to Its Healthcare Software

Cognizant has accused Infosys of stealing trade secrets related to its healthcare software, TriZetto. The legal battle between the two IT giants has intensified, with Cognizant claiming that Infosys was "caught red-handed" misappropriating confidential information. Infosys has denied these allegations, stating that the information in question was publicly available.

The lawsuit between Cognizant and Infosys has been filed in a federal court in Dallas, Texas. The legal battle has intensified with both companies accusing each other of various wrongdoings related to trade secrets and anti-competitive practices.

The legal dispute between Cognizant and Infosys began in August 2024 when Cognizant accused Infosys of stealing trade secrets related to its healthcare software, TriZetto. Cognizant claimed that Infosys misappropriated confidential information that it had originally accessed through non-disclosure agreements (NDAAs).

Infosys denied these allegations, stating that the information was publicly available and countersued Cognizant, accusing its CEO, Ravi Kumar S, of delaying the rollout of Infosys's own healthcare software product when he was a president at Infosys.

The dispute intensified when Cognizant alleged that Infosys refused to allow an audit of its use of TriZetto information, which could have revealed crucial evidence. Cognizant has requested the court to compel Infosys to submit all related documents. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for both companies in the global IT industry.

Cognizant's latest filing on February 7, 2025, follows Infosys's countersuit filed in January 2025. In its January countersuit, Infosys accused Cognizant and its CEO, Ravi Kumar S, of delaying the rollout of Infosys's healthcare software product, Helix, while he was still a president at Infosys. Infosys claimed that Cognizant engaged in anti-competitive practices and misused sensitive information.

Cognizant's February 7 filing reiterated its accusations that Infosys was "caught red-handed" misappropriating trade secrets related to its healthcare software, TriZetto. Cognizant also alleged that Infosys refused to allow an audit of its use of TriZetto information, which could have revealed crucial evidence.

It may be recalled that there have been similar disputes between Cognizant and Infosys in the past. The current legal battle is part of a long-standing rivalry between the two IT giants. The conflict initially began when Infosys accused Cognizant of poaching its senior executives, following the appointment of Infosys’ former president and deputy COO, Ravi Kumar S, as Cognizant’s CEO. Cognizant has also faced similar poaching allegations from another Indian IT giant, Wipro.

Indian Book Publishers File Copyright Lawsuit Against OpenAI

A coalition of Indian book publishers, including prominent names like Bloomsbury, Penguin Random House, Cambridge University Press, Pan Macmillan, Rupa Publications, and S. Chand and Co., has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against OpenAI in the Delhi High Court. The Federation of Indian Publishers (FIP) is leading this legal action.

The lawsuit centers on the use of copyrighted book content by OpenAI's ChatGPT to generate summaries, which the publishers argue could undermine book sales and creativity within the publishing industry. The FIP has demanded that OpenAI cease accessing their copyrighted works, negotiate licensing agreements, or delete the datasets used in AI training and outline compensation plans.

OpenAI has responded to the copyright lawsuit filed by Indian publishers in the Delhi High Court. OpenAI argued that the Delhi High Court lacks jurisdiction over the case because the company does not have any physical presence or servers in India.

OpenAI mentioned that deleting the training data, as requested by the publishers, would violate its legal obligations under US law. The Sam Altman led AI company emphasized that it is bound to maintain the integrity of their training data due to ongoing legal requirements.

OpenAI maintained that its AI systems make fair use of publicly available data, which is a common practice in AI development.

The court is scheduled to hear the case on January 28, 2025.

This case is part of a broader global trend where content creators are challenging the use of their copyrighted material in training AI systems. The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for intellectual property rights and the future of AI development in India.

IBM Sued for Contaminating Water Supply of Village in New York from 1911 to 2002

The Village of Endicott in the state of New York of United States, has filed a lawsuit against IBM, alleging that the company's operations led to the contamination of its water supply with hazardous chemicals, including 1,4-Dioxane, PFAS, and other toxic substances. The lawsuit claims that IBM's improper disposal of industrial solvents used in degreasers at its facilities from 1911 to 2002 caused contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater.

The village is seeking accountability for the contamination, which has forced the closure of several drinking wells and incurred significant costs for cleanup and mitigation. The lawsuit cites multiple incidents of spills and leaks, including a significant underground chemical plume discovered in 2002.

The complaint highlights several incidents, including a significant underground chemical plume discovered in 2002, which spread across 350 acres. The hazardous chemicals mentioned include 1,4-Dioxane, PFAS, trichloroethylene (TCE), and methylchloroform (TCA). These chemicals are linked to serious health issues, including cancer.

IBM's roots in the village of Endicott trace back to the formation of the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) in 1911, which later became IBM. The company chose Endicott as its headquarter.

IBM Endicott during World War II

In 1924, the company officially adopted the name International Business Machines (IBM). During World War II, IBM's Endicott workforce swelled to over 10,000 employees, contributing significantly to the war effort.

Now in 2024, on 31 December, demolition of the IBM building, at Endicott, has been started and will take about 5 months to completely demolish it. This marks a significant moment for the village, as these buildings have been vacant since 2007 and are considered blighted structures. The demolition project is expected to take around five months and is being led by Gorick Construction. The project is funded by $6 million from the New York State government and $2 million from Broome County's American Rescue Plan Act funds.

This lawsuit represents a significant step towards holding IBM accountable for the environmental and public health impacts caused by its industrial practices over the decades.

The village's water supply has been significantly impacted, with several drinking wells closed due to contamination. The village currently relies on a single well, with plans to drill an additional well in 2025.

The village is suing IBM for multiple violations, including those under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), public nuisance, failure to warn, negligence, trespass, and seeking punitive damages.

The village is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages, as well as a jury trial.

IBM has stated that it has been committed to the health and safety of the community and will vigorously defend itself against the claims. The company has also highlighted its long history of remediation activities in Endicott.

It's a complex and ongoing legal battle with significant implications for both the village and the company.

Google Sues Its Former Bengaluru-Office Employee for Leaking Trade Secrets

Google India has initiated legal proceedings against Harshit Roy, a former employee from their Bengaluru office, for allegedly leaking confidential trade secrets related to Pixel devices. The lawsuit was filed in a Texas federal court and claims that Roy shared detailed specifications of proprietary hardware and software on his social media accounts.

Roy, who worked on next-generation system-on-chip technology for Pixel devices, reportedly began posting confidential information shortly after resigning in February 2024 and moving to the United States for doctoral studies 2. Despite Google's requests to remove the content, Roy continued to share the trade secrets.

Google is seeking unspecified monetary damages and court orders to prevent further dissemination of the confidential information.

Roy is accused of sharing detailed specifications of proprietary hardware and software on his social media accounts. He worked at Google from 2020 to early 2024 and resigned in February 2024 to pursue doctoral studies in the United States.

After resigning, Roy began posting confidential information on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn. Google engaged an external investigator and filed the lawsuit in a Texas federal court, seeking unspecified monetary damages and court orders to prevent further dissemination of the confidential information.

Despite Google's requests to remove the content, Roy continued to share the trade secrets. Google's spokesperson emphasized that such behavior is unacceptable and that the company is committed to safeguarding its proprietary information.