Technology disputes

A technology transaction that fails ends in one of four places: a contract claim, an infringement suit, a data breach claim or a takedown dispute. The practice on technology, data and product covers advising on products and data, and the practice on intellectual property and licensing covers rights and licences. Here the subject is what the law allows when a project fails, a right is infringed, data is lost or content is taken down.

Software and SaaS contracts

A software or software-as-a-service (SaaS) dispute is a contract dispute and is decided under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The usual contests are whether the deliverable met the specification, whether acceptance was given or deemed, whether service levels were missed and what credit follows, and whether a party could terminate. Compensation for breach is governed by sections 73 and 74: the party in breach pays loss that naturally arose from the breach or that the parties knew would result, and where the contract names a sum payable on breach, the court allows reasonable compensation not exceeding that sum. A cap on liability is enforced as a term of the contract, but disputes arise over whether a loss falls inside an exclusion for indirect loss, and over claims framed in fraud or wilful default. Source code escrow, data return on exit and the survival of confidentiality terms after termination are the other recurrent issues.

Infringement suits and the Commercial Courts

Disputes on intellectual property rights and on technology agreements are commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 when they meet the statutory definition and the specified value. Computer programmes are literary works under the Copyright Act, 1957, and section 51 defines infringement, section 55 gives civil remedies and section 63 provides offences. A computer programme as such is excluded from patentability by section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, so claims on technology often rest on copyright, confidentiality and, for names and get-up, the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Suits go to the Commercial Court at Bengaluru that has jurisdiction, and appeals lie to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court of Karnataka under section 13 of the 2015 Act, within sixty days. Section 12A requires pre-institution mediation before a commercial suit unless the plaintiff seeks urgent interim relief. Interim injunctions are sought under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm, and courts have granted orders against unnamed defendants and directions to platforms and registrars where infringing material is spread across sites.

Data breach liability

The position depends on the date. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is in force only in part. The provisions constituting the Data Protection Board and the rule-making powers commenced on 13 November 2025, and the substantive duties of data fiduciaries, including reasonable security safeguards and breach intimation under section 8 of the Act and the Rules, commence on 13 May 2027. A breach that occurs before the substantive duties start is therefore not assessed under those duties. Until then, the Information Technology Act, 2000 remains the base: section 43A provides compensation for failure to protect sensitive personal data by a body corporate, until section 44(2) of the 2023 Act omits it on 13 May 2027, and section 72A deals with disclosure of information in breach of contract. The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) directions of 28 April 2022 under section 70B require reporting of specified cyber incidents within six hours. Contract claims between a customer and a vendor follow the indemnity and liability clauses regardless of the statute. Once the duties start, the Board may inquire and impose a penalty, and appeals from its decisions lie to the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

Intermediaries and takedown

Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 exempts an intermediary from liability for third-party content when it acts as a passive conduit, observes due diligence and acts on actual knowledge or on a government or court notice. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 set the due diligence duties, including a grievance officer, and time limits for acting on notices. Rule 3(1)(d), as consolidated by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology on 10 February 2026, requires removal within three hours of actual knowledge, which arises only from a court order or a reasoned written intimation from an authorised officer. Section 69A empowers the Union Government to direct blocking of public access to content on stated grounds. Disputes arise when content is removed without reasons, when a platform declines to act and is sued for infringement or defamation, and when an authority's direction is challenged as outside the Rules. Ordinary civil suits and writ petitions are both used, depending on whether the adversary is a private party or the State.

Arbitration of technology contracts

Technology contracts commonly contain an arbitration clause. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governs the reference to arbitration under section 8, interim measures from the court under section 9, appointment of arbitrators under section 11 where the parties' procedure fails, and challenges to the award under section 34, which must be brought within three months, extendable by thirty days. The seat decides which courts supervise the arbitration. Technology disputes raise common practical questions: technical experts, confidentiality of source code in the record, and interim protection of data or access pending the award. Where the contract is with a foreign party, the choice of seat and governing law, and, for an award made outside India, whether it will be enforced here under Part II of the Act, are decided early.