Technological innovation rarely waits for the law. In a recent interview on Khurram’s Quorum, KVP partner Paven Malhotra discussed what happens as courts, companies and lawyers work to catch up. For more than two decades, Malhotra has represented technology companies in disputes at the intersection of law and innovation, including three transformative waves of technology: smartphones, social media and artificial intelligence. His work has included smartphone patent litigation, disputes involving online content and Section 230, and emerging intellectual property issues involving AI.
“Litigation usually lags technological change,” Malhotra said. “So you’ll first have the development of new technologies…startups developing investment dollars going into those spaces, and then what you oftentimes see is that litigation comes in waves.”
For lawyers handling these early cases, Malhotra identified two essential tasks: drawing lessons from existing precedent and helping courts understand the broader consequences of their decisions.
In emerging-technology cases, lawyers must consider “what the existing case law tells us,” and “how we can develop the case law in a way that protects people’s rights but also allows for innovation and progress for the future,” Malhotra said.
That challenge is particularly acute in AI litigation. Malhotra discussed how disputes initially centered on copyright have expanded to include the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, privacy, product liability and questions about accountability for agentic AI. Those issues increasingly affect not only frontier model developers but any company incorporating AI into its products.
Malhotra also emphasized that effective representation requires understanding more than the legal issues. Litigation that can last two to five years is “an eternity” in an industry where business models, products, personnel and competitive relationships change quickly. Litigation strategy must remain aligned with a client’s evolving business priorities.
The conversation also explored the experiences that shaped Malhotra’s practice. An early interest in journalism taught him to work under tight deadlines and distill complex subjects. His efforts to anticipate emerging areas of technology law also taught him that not every investment will produce immediate results. An early focus on 3D printing did not lead to the disputes he anticipated, but the experience helped refine the approach he later brought to AI: study the technology, follow the industry and remain willing to act on informed conviction.
For Malhotra, sustaining that work over the long term requires resilience, curiosity and a sense of purpose. One important thread across his cases, he explained, is considering not only how his work serves a client, but also how it may help facilitate progress within an industry or technology.
“I have to create my own meaning in the world,” Malhotra said. That perspective helps him remain grounded while managing demanding cases, developing teams and working at the leading edge of technological change.
