Mr. Steinberg was selected as a “Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigator” in California.The Daily Journal 2011

Bob Steinberg

Los Angeles | Silicon Valley
  • 355 South Grand Avenue
  • Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
  • USA
 
 

Bob Steinberg is a partner resident in both the Los Angeles and Silicon Valley offices of Latham & Watkins and is a member of the Litigation Department. Mr. Steinberg is a former global Co-Chair of the firm's Intellectual Property Practice. His practice focuses primarily on disputes involving patents, trade secrets, trademarks, copyrights and DMCA matters relating to software, semiconductors, internet and related computer technologies. He represents many of the largest high-profile software (including gaming), internet and semiconductor companies, such as such as Adobe, AU Optronics (AUO), Sony, and Symantec. Mr. Steinberg is also a registered patent attorney.

Mr. Steinberg has continuously been recognized as a leading lawyer by The Legal 500 and Chambers USA. He was most recently recognized as a 2013 Top Rated Lawyer in Intellectual Property by The American Lawyer. Mr. Steinberg was named among the 2012 Who’s Who for Intellectual Property Law by Los Angeles Business Journal and among the top IP litigators in California by The Daily Journal in 2011.Mr. Steinberg was particularly cited for his representation of the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust in a dispute with a defendant who claimed to possess long-lost negatives created by the famous nature photographer – which the Trust maintained were not authentic. Mr. Steinberg assisted AMD secure a US$1.25 billion worldwide settlement in a patent, contract and antitrust dispute with Intel.

Prior to joining Latham, Mr. Steinberg worked as the Chairman and CEO of xSides Corporation, a developer of desktop security software. He also spent 11 years at Irell & Manella where he was partner and member of the Executive Committee.

  • Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Wowza Media Systems, Inc. – Mr. Steinberg is the lead trial attorney in this multi-patent infringement action and unfair competition claim filed against Wowza Media Systems, Inc. in the US District Court for the Northern District of California over software relating to certain protocols (including RTMP and RTMPe) for streaming video to and from Adobe’s flagship Flash Media Server. Wowza has developed a competing server to the Flash Media Server called the Wowza Media Server. Wowza counter claimed for fraud, Sherman 2 Act violation and unfair competition. Latham filed a motion to strike and dismiss Wowza’s counterclaims, which was granted by the court on September 6, 2012. The court also granted Adobe its attorneys’ fees and costs for the motion. Trial is set for August 2013.
  • Samsung v. AU Optronics (AUO) – Mr. Steinberg was one of the lead trial attorneys representing AUO in a series of patent infringement lawsuits filed by Samsung against AUO in the International Trade Commission, Delaware District Court, and the Northern District of California. Samsung asserted a total of 10 patents against AUO in these jurisdictions for alleged infringement of certain LCD displays. AUO counter sued Samsung on 10 patents covering LCD displays. After substantial motion practice and discovery, the parties settled by entering into a mutual cross license with one another. A victory for either party could have precluded the other party from shipment of various LDC displays into the US or within US.
  • Optimal Markets v. FTI Consulting et al. – Mr. Steinberg was the lead trial attorney representing FTI Consulting, Inc. and other defendants in a trade secret misappropriation and copyright action originally filed in Federal Court. The action was moved to State Court, and then moved to arbitration, which lasted 2.5 weeks. The copyright action was dismissed and the arbitrator determined that there was no trade secret misappropriation by FTI Consulting, Inc. and other defendants. FTI won a complete defensive verdict and was awarded its attorneys' fees.
  • Paltalk Holdings Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. – Mr. Steinberg acted as one of the lead counsel representing Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc., Sony Online Entertainment LLC. and Sony Corporation of America in a patent case brought by Paltalk Holdings Inc. in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving a patent related to network technology for massively multiplayer game technologies. This case settled in October 2011, just before trial.
  • Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust – Mr. Steinberg was lead trial counsel representing the Trust which handles the publishing rights to Ansel Adams’s works, in a trademark-related dispute in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The Trust sued an individual and a media company which sold products derived from what they alleged to be long-lost negatives of the famous photographer Ansel Adams. This case involved several cutting-edge trademark issues, and has been publicized in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and in various other media outlets, including on national TV. Ultimately the case settled with defendants agreeing to certian conditions concerning Ansel Adams' name and likeness.
  • Getty Trust v. Getty Images – Represented Getty Trust, the owner of the Getty Museum in Los Angeles, in a case filed in the Central District of California against Getty Images, a photo stock house located in Seattle, Washington. This case involved a breach of contract, unfair competition and trademark infringement claims. This case settled before going to trial.
  • Stac Electronics v. Microsoft Corp. – Mr. Steinberg authored the Stac Electronics patent, which he helped litigate against Microsoft in a suit which asserted that Microsoft had infringed Stac’s patented data compression technology. The case concluded in a month-long jury trial where the jury found that Microsoft infringed on two Stac patents and awarded Stac US$120 million. Afterwards, in a sweeping post-verdict injunction, Microsoft was required to recall infringing products worldwide. The case settled with over US$80 million paid to Stac and a variety of mutually beneficial cross-licenses.