Patents in Orbit: Reimagining Intellectual Property for India’s Space Future

Introduction

In the twenty-first century, outer space has transitioned from being a state monopoly to a frontier dominated by private enterprises and global collaborations. India, which was once a minor player in the space race, has now become a major player. Mangalyaan, Chandrayaan, and the forthcoming Gaganyaan mission are just a few of the many achievements that testify to India’s ability to innovate and explore at a low cost. The Indian Space Policy 2023 across the country opened a new chapter, where the Indian National Space Research Organisation (herein referred to as “ISRO”) and the Indian National Space Promotion and Authorisation Centre (herein referred to as “IN-SPACe”) supervise the space economy and allow private companies, start-ups, and universities to be the major players.

However, this moment of ambition uncovers a deep legal vacuum. Intellectual property rights (wherein referred to as “IPR”) are territorial, dependent on national jurisdiction. Space law, by contrast, is universal, treating outer space as the “province of all mankind” under the Outer Space Treaty 1967 (wherein referred to as “OST”). Reconciling exclusivity with universality has always been difficult, but for India the issue is now urgent. Privatisation of space activity is accelerating, human spaceflight is approaching, and international competitors such as the United States have already legislated on IPR in space.

As Raunak Sood has observed, India’s IPR framework is “unprepared for the emerging challenges of space exploration.”[1] The Law Commission of India recognised the same in 2009, recommending comprehensive space legislation including IPR provisions. More than a decade later, India has not acted.

This paper contributes by arguing that India must legislate a space-specific IPR regime that integrates domestic patent law with international obligations, anticipates disputes in areas such as lunar mining, and positions India as a rule-shaper for the Global South. Unlike prior commentary, it situates India’s challenge within comparative practice and proposes safeguards to ensure compatibility with the OST and TRIPS.

India’s Legal Vacuum in Space IPR

The collision of IPR with space law shows up in three major ways: the first is the inventions that are made in orbit, the second is the ownership of the data gathered from the Earth observation satellites, and the third is the collaboration among the different countries in their space missions. The patent law grants the right to the sole use, but the Outer Space Treaty does not allow states to take possession. So, the result is a situation of confusion in law that hinders the progress of innovative ideas.

India’s legislative history demonstrates this void. The Draft Space Activities Bill 2017 aimed at regulating space activities of the private sector, but it was the clause that transferred all IPR to the government which received the heaviest criticism as it would preclude private investment.[2] While partial government ownership may be warranted for security reasons, complete central control would likely result in the relocation of start-ups to other countries and reducing foreign investment. The Bill did not get through. The Indian Space Policy 2023[3]and the Norms, Guidelines, and Procedures 2024 (as referred to herein as “NGP”) opened the sector up but did not discuss anything regarding intellectual property. [4]The Law Commission of India had, in its 229th Report (2009), already pinpointed this as an urgent need.

The situation is made also problematic by remote sensing data., The National Remote Sensing Centre (wherein referred to as “NRSC”) regulates access, but ownership of raw satellite data is undefined. This ambiguity dissuades private investment in downstream applications such as geospatial technology, navigation, and climate monitoring.

Judicial silence compounds the problem. No Indian court has ruled on space-related IPR. By contrast, in Hughes Aircraft Co. v United States, the Court of Federal Claims confirmed the applicability of patents to satellite technology, establishing enforceability.[5] Comparable analogies can be drawn from admiralty law and international seabed mining, where resources in commons are regulated but exploitation rights are protected. The absence of precedence in India leaves inventors exposed to the discretion of public policy rather than enforceable laws.

The American Approach to Space-Related IPR

The United States shows the clearest example. Title 35 USC §105 extends the application of patent law to cover inventions created or utilized on U.S. space objects.[6] Without this provision, protection for such inventions would be in question. U.S. took a step further with the enactment of the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 2015, which acknowledges ownership of rights to resources obtained from space objects.[7] While these efforts spark international controversies, they provide transparency and encourage investments. Considerations of the investments are even more important in the context of the resources obtained from space objects, of which the rights are acknowledged by the Competitiveness Act.

Judicial decisions have bolstered the statutory intent. In the case of Hughes Aircraft, patents on space technology were protected against government use, establishing that intellectual property rights extend to technology in orbit. Under a licensing regime that aims at balancing national security with commercial concerns, remote sensing is also put in the same category. Other countries have begun precautionary measures like this one. China has put forth a plan for regulating private sector participation in space, while the Moon Agreement of 1979—approved by India but not recognized by powerful nations like the U.S.—remains ambiguous as to resource exploitation. The agreement is inactive, but it still suggests that the debates around ownership and common benefit are still not over.

India’s lesson is clear: legislating in advance leads to predictability and competitiveness as the major benefits. It is possible to extend the scope of IPR laws in India to cover space; however, it is essential that such laws comply with the OST principles on non-appropriation, which would mean conflicts with international treaties.

The Case for a Space-Specific IPR Framework

There are three things that are technology, economy and strategy that should together form the basis of a strong argument to make reforms now rather than wait. Employment and GDP rise as the economy benefits directly from space missions. The Gaganyaan project alongside the collaboration with private companies will result in the creation of new ideas and technologies. Indian inventors without legal protection will not only stand to lose their inventions but also have the same copied abroad. The immediate missions will not be the end as the mining of moon resources will gradually become commercially exploited. Nonetheless, Interlune Corporation has already secured a patent for moon mining technology, thus, the disputes over the ownership of intellectual property concerning extraterrestrial resources are no longer nail-biting. But such patents open a debate as to whether the birth of IPR relating to resources would violate the non-appropriation clause in the Outer Space Treaty.

Economically, India’s ambition is to take the space economy to a billion-dollar industry. However, certainty is a prerequisite to capital. The investors in venture capital and the multinational partnerships will avoid the jurisdiction where the ownership of intellectual property is confusing. The absence of reform will result in the shifting of investments to the USA or other nations that have enforceable frameworks.

India has, in a way, planned to gain the position of a leader in the Global South and at the same time to influence space governance. However, this dream still requires a lot of work within the country. Relying on foreign practices diminishes the control over the situation and the power to negotiate in international circles, such as the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (hereafter “UNCOPUOS”) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (hereafter “WIPO”). A domestic law concurrent with the OST but focusing on Indian priorities would not only protect innovation but also show the country’s power.

Way Ahead: From Policy to Binding Law

A comprehensive Space Activities Act must form the centrepiece of reform. It should build upon the Draft Bill of 2017 but remove provisions that vest all IPR in the state. ³ Instead, it should extend Indian intellectual property laws to inventions created or used on Indian-registered space objects, following the precedent of U.S. law under 35 USC §105. ⁷ This would provide innovators with certainty while allowing exceptions for national security.

Codification is equally necessary. The Indian Space Policy 2023 and the NGP 2024 should be elevated from administrative frameworks to enforceable statutes. Statutory cross-references to the Telecommunications Act 2023 and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (wherein referred to as “TRAI”) 2025 recommendations on satellite spectrum would prevent conflicts between telecommunications and space law.[8][9] Pending drafts—including the SpaceCom Policy[10], the SpaceRS Policy[11], and the Humans-in-Space Policy—should be finalised and annexed to the Act.[12]

Legal reform must also anticipate potential conflicts. Extending IPR into space could be challenged as inconsistent with the OST or with TRIPS under the WTO. India should therefore legislate safeguards: clarifying that patents protect inventions but not territorial claims, limiting liability in joint missions, and mandating disclosure of space-related inventions. These precautions would make the Act more robust against any international challenge.

Moreover, international concordance should be an integral part of the process. By 2023[13], when signing the Artemis Accords, India was already on the path of openness and inter-operability. Domestic laws should be in sync with this by imposing Intellectual Property Management Plans in collaborative missions, thereby guaranteeing a balance between sovereignty and cooperation.

Conclusion

India’s ascent to the status of a spacefaring nation has been lauded across the globe. The missions like the Chandrayaan and Mangalyaan were great proofs to India’s creativity and economy, while the future Gaganyaan mission is going to be its entry to the human spaceflight sector. All these accomplishments have brought India up to par with the other major space-faring nations. However, the problem of a non-existence binding legal framework for IPR in outer space is still there despite the thrilling success of the missions.

International practice shows that foresight in this area is possible. The United States has long extended domestic patent law to cover inventions in orbit and has legislated rights over space resources, thereby offering legal certainty to its innovators. The Law Commission of India anticipated the same need in 2009, but its recommendations remain dormant. The Draft Space Activities Bill 2017, despite its flaws, at least acknowledged the issue, and current discussions about a revised Bill indicate recognition of the urgency. However, delay in legislative action threatens India’s competitiveness at a time when private participation is accelerating.

This challenge is not only legal or commercial; it is strategic. India aspires to lead the Global South in shaping norms of space governance, but leadership requires more than technological achievement. It demands normative capacity—the ability to create rules and institutions that others adopt. Without a domestic framework, India will remain dependent on foreign precedents, undermining sovereignty and reducing its influence in forums such as UNCOPUOS and WIPO.

At the same time, challenges present opportunities. Addressing the gaps now would allow India to modernise its IPR regime, anticipate disputes in areas like lunar mining and remote sensing, and project influence by proposing fair frameworks for the Global South.

This paper’s contribution lies in proposing a model for India to integrate its domestic patent regime with international obligations, thereby balancing sovereignty, innovation, and cooperation. By legislating proactively, India can convert vulnerabilities into opportunities, safeguard its innovators, and establish itself as an architect of international space governance.

Author: Yash Jha, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to [email protected] or at IIPRD. 

References

1. Raunak Sood, ‘An Analytical Study of Intellectual Property Regime in Outer Space with Special Reference to India’ (2025) 6(1) Bennett Journal of Legal Studies 89, 90.
2. Ministry of Law and Justice, Draft Space Activities Bill 2017 (Government of India, November 2017) https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/1970/Draft%20Space%20Activities%20Bill%202017.pdf accessed 23 August 2025.
3. Department of Space (Government of India), Indian Space Policy-2023 (Government of India, 2023) https://www.isro.gov.in/media_isro/pdf/IndianSpacePolicy2023.pdf accessed 23 August 2025.
4. Indian National Space Promotion And Authorisation Centre, Norms, Guidelines And Procedures (NGP) (IN-Space,2024) https://Www.Inspace.Gov.In/Sys_Attachment.Do?Sys_Id=5d532e37877102503b0f0d060cbb35cf Accessed 23 August 2025.
5. Hughes Aircraft Co v United States 29 Fed Cl 197, 203 (1993).
6. United States Code, Title 35—Patents, § 105, ‘Inventions in Outer Space’ https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2023-title35/USCODE-2023-title35-partII-chap10-sec105.
   United States Code, Title 35—Patents, § 105, ‘Inventions in Outer Space’ https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2023-title35/USCODE-2023-title35-partII-chap10-sec105 accessed 23 August 2025.
7. US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 2015, Pub L No 114-90, HR 2262, 114th Congress (2015) https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262 accessed 23 August 2025.
8. ‘Telecommunications Act, 2023 Administrative Allocation for Satellite Services’ Medianama (21 January 2025) https://www.medianama.com/2025/01/223-telecom-minister-scindia-defends-administrative-allocation-satellite-spectrum/ accessed 23 August 2025.
9. Press Information Bureau, ‘TRAI releases Recommendations on “Terms and Conditions for the Assignment of Spectrum for Certain Satellite-Based Commercial Communication Services”’ (9 May 2025) https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2127866 accessed 23 August 2025.
10. Department of Space, Draft Space-based Communication Policy of India (SpaceCom Policy) 2020 (draft) https://ispa.space/assets/pdf/policies/indian/policies/draft-spacecom-policy-2020.pdf accessed 23 August 2025.
11. Department of Space, Draft Space-based Remote Sensing Policy (SpaceRS Policy) and NGP 2020 (draft) https://mycoordinates.org/spacers_policy_ngp_2020_draft.pdf accessed 23 August 2025.
12. Department of Space, Humans in Space Policy for India, 2021 (draft) https://sarinlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Humans-in-Space-Feb-2021.pdf accessed 23 August 2025.
13. NASA, ‘India becomes the 27th Artemis Accords signatory’ (21 June 2023) https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-welcomes-india-as-27th-artemis-accords-signatory/ accessed 23 August 2025.

[1] Raunak Sood, ‘An Analytical Study of Intellectual Property Regime in Outer Space with Special Reference to India’ (2025) 6(1) Bennett Journal of Legal Studies 89, 90.

[2] Ministry of Law and Justice, Draft Space Activities Bill 2017 (Government of India, November 2017) https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/1970/Draft%20Space%20Activities%20Bill%202017.pdf accessed 13 October 2025.

[3] Department of Space (Government of India), Indian Space Policy-2023 (Government of India, 2023) https://www.isro.gov.in/media_isro/pdf/IndianSpacePolicy2023.pdf accessed 13 October 2025.

[4] Indian National Space Promotion and Authorisation Centre, Norms, Guidelines and Procedures (NGP) (IN SPACe, 2024) https://www.inspace.gov.in/sys_attachment.do?sys_id=5d532e37877102503b0f0d060cbb35cf accessed 13 October 2025.

[5] Hughes Aircraft Co v United States 29 Fed Cl 197, 203 (1993).

[6] United States Code, Title 35—Patents, § 105, ‘Inventions in Outer Space’ https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2023-title35/USCODE-2023-title35-partII-chap10-sec105 accessed 23 August 2025.

[7] US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 2015, Pub L No 114-90, HR 2262, 114th Congress (2015) https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262 accessed 23 August 2025.

[8] ‘Telecommunications Act, 2023 Administrative Allocation for Satellite Services’ Medianama (21 January 2025) https://www.medianama.com/2025/01/223-telecom-minister-scindia-defends-administrative-allocation-satellite-spectrum/ accessed 23 August 2025.

[9] Press Information Bureau, ‘TRAI releases Recommendations on “Terms and Conditions for the Assignment of Spectrum for Certain Satellite-Based Commercial Communication Services”’ (9 May 2025) https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2127866 accessed 23 August 2025.

[10] Department of Space, Draft Space-based Communication Policy of India (SpaceCom Policy) 2020 (draft) https://ispa.space/assets/pdf/policies/indian/policies/draft-spacecom-policy-2020.pdf accessed 23 August 2025.

[11] Department of Space, Draft Space-based Remote Sensing Policy (SpaceRS Policy) and NGP 2020 (draft) https://mycoordinates.org/spacers_policy_ngp_2020_draft.pdf accessed 23 August 2025.

[12] Department of Space, Humans in Space Policy for India, 2021 (draft) https://sarinlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Humans-in-Space-Feb-2021.pdf accessed 23 August 2025.

[13] NASA, ‘India becomes the 27th Artemis Accords signatory’ 21 June 2023) https://www.nasa.gov/news release/nasa-welcomes-india-as-27th-artemis-accords-signatory/ accessed 17 October 2025