As per the Consolidated Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Policy Circular 2014, foreign direct investment in telecom services (fixed, mobile and internet) is subject to observance of licensing and security conditions by licensee as well as investors. These conditions are set out in the Unified License, which is required for all telecom services in the entire country.
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) in India are required to comply with the License Agreement for Provision of Internet Services. Additionally, TSPs have to comply with two license agreements in order to operate: the Cellular Mobile Telephone Service (CMTS) License Agreement and the License Agreement for the Provision of Basic Telephone Services (BTS). The first license agreement applies to cellular mobile communications, whereas the second applies to landlines. It is reported that, in practice, these licenses afford the government extensive access to communication data held and processed by service providers.
It is reported that India’s one-time licensing fee (approximately USD 500,000 for a service-specific license, or USD 2.7 million for an all India Universal License) for telecommunications providers serves as a barrier to market entry for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, the incumbent, is fully owned by the Government of India. BSNL (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) provides all types of telecom services namely telephone services on landline, Wireless Local Loop and GSM mobile, Broadband, Internet, leased circuits and long distance telecom services.

India lacks a comprehensive framework in place that provides effective protection of trade secrets, but there are limited measures addressing some issues related to them. As per the decision of the Delhi High Court in 1995, a trade secret is defined as any information with commercial value, which is not available in the public domain and the disclosure of which would cause significant harm to the owner. Moreover, Indian courts and tribunals have upheld the protection of trade secrets under other laws such as contract law, copyright law, principles of equity, and common law action of breach of confidence (which is basically a breach of an obligation to keep a piece information secret). In addition to the above, the Information Technology Law of 2000 also sets legal means of protection to confidential information in the form of electronic records.

It is reported that there is an obligation for passive infrastructure sharing in India to deliver telecom services to end users, and it is practiced in the mobile sector and in the fixed sector based on commercial agreements.

India has ratified the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty.

India has ratified the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty.

Copyright is not adequately enforced online in India. It is reported that, although the country has taken steps against websites with pirated content, there is weak enforcement of IP by courts and police officers, lack of familiarity with investigation techniques, and the continued absence of any centralized IP enforcement agency, combined with a failure to coordinate actions on both the national and state level, threaten to undercut the progress made.
In 2017, it was reported that the rate of unlicensed software installation in the country was 56% in 2017 (below the 57% rate of the Asian Pacific countries), for an estimated commercial value of USD 2,474 million. The value of losses from piracy of music and movies in 2020 was reported to be about USD 4 billion per year, while the commercial value of unlicensed software used in India was approximately USD 3 billion.

The Copyright Act, 1957 provides a clear regime of copyright exceptions that follows the fair dealing model, which enable the lawful use of copyrighted work by others without obtaining permission. According to Art. 52(1), a fair dealing with any work (not being a computer programme) for the purposes of private or personal use, criticism or review and the reporting of current events and current affairs does not constitute an infringement of copyright.

In 2002, the foreign filing license requirement was introduced in the Indian Patents Act of 1970. This requirement provides that any inventor who is a resident of India should file a patent application for his/her own invention first in India. Only after a period of six weeks after the date of filing of the patent application, the filing can be extended internationally. Alternatively, the inventor is required to obtain the controller’s permission for filing the patent application outside India. However, given that the process is reported as burdensome, filing an application first in India is the preferred way of complying with these provisions. The violation of such rule results in criminal liability under Section 118 of the Indian Patent Act of 1970, with consequent monetary fine or imprisonment up to two years, in addition to the impossibility to proceed with the patent application.

It is reported that the potential threat of patent revocations, lack of presumption of patent validity, and the narrow patentability criteria under the India Patents Act impact companies across different sectors. In addition, it has been reported that courts take a significant amount of time to make a final decision in a patent case. A patent lawsuit ordinarily takes approximately five to seven years to be finally decided after trial, if contested by the other party. The Commercial Courts Act is helping to speed up the process with case management hearings and time-bound trials. However, the backlog of cases at the court and the shortage of judicial officers have an impact on the time it takes for a final decision on a case.

India is a party to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).

According to the Patent Act, 1970 (Act No. 39 of 1970, as amended up to Act No. 15 of 2005) and the Patents Rules, 2003 (as amended up to Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2012), applications for copyright, trademark and patents can be filed online, however, design applications can only be filed in person. Moreover, applicants that do not have a registered place of business in India are required to file applications through an Indian attorney or agent.

According to Art. 6.2.15 of Chapter 6 of the 2014 Consolidated Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Policy Circular, full foreign direct ownership is permitted in the telecommunications sector (including Category-I Telecommunications Infrastructure Providers). However, a government approval is required for FDI above 49%. This approval is also required for other regulated sectors, including FM broadcasting, up-linking of news through digital media and TV, newspapers and magazines.

The Foreign Direct Investment Policy Circular stipulates the screening of foreign ownership above 49% in single-brand retailing e-commerce entities that have both physical and digital stores (single-brand retailing in e-commerce form is only allowed when the entity also owns physical stores in India).

Indian brands should be owned and controlled resident Indian citizens and/or companies which are owned and controlled by resident Indian citizens. The term 'Indian brands' is not defined. A company is considered as 'owned' by resident Indian citizens if more than 50% of the capital is beneficially owned by resident Indian citizens and/or companies, which are ultimately owned and controlled by resident Indian citizens. The term 'control' includes the right to appoint a majority of directors or to control the management of policy decisions.
With respect to single brand retail (SBRT), local sourcing norms are prescribed which mandate that SBRT where FDI is greater than 51% are required to source 30% of the value of goods purchased by them from India (preferably from Indian MSMEs, village and cottage industries, artisans and craftsmen). In 2019, it was clarified that this local sourcing requirement of 30% is also met when the foreign retailer (operating as an SBRT in India) sources from India for its exports. Prior to 2019, only a SBRT with a physical store could undertake retail trading through e-commerce. In 2019, it was held that an SBRT company can undertake retail trading through e-commerce prior to opening a physical store, subject to the condition that the entity opens the physical stores within 2 years from the date of the start of online retail. This has allowed companies like Apple to open online stores in India, without a physical store.