Bob Steinberg

Select Litigation Experience

• Stac Electronics v. Microsoft Corp. – Mr. Steinberg authored the Stac Electronics patent, which he helped litigate against Microsoft in a suit that 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.
• Veritas Operating Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. – Mr. Steinberg represented the patent owner, Veritas Operating Corp. (Symantec) in an action related to critical volume management technology. The case involved claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of contract that Veritas brought against Microsoft in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington. The case settled to the mutual satisfaction of the parties.

Other Representative IP Litigation Experience

• Patent & Insurance Coverage
  • CMG Financial Services v. Pacific Trust Bank et al. – Mr. Steinberg represented Pacific Trust Bank in a patent infringement lawsuit. Pacific Trust Bank moved for summary judgment that the patent was invalid because it claimed an un-patentable abstract idea. The court granted summary judgment invalidating every claim of the asserted patents. Mr. Steinberg also represented Pacific Trust Bank in a related dispute with its insurance carrier regarding whether its Bankers Professional Liability insurance policy covered the patent infringement lawsuit. The insurance carrier ultimately agreed to cover the claim and to pay the majority of Pacific Trust’s fees and costs related to the lawsuit.
• Patent, Antitrust & Unfair Competition
  • Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Wowza Media Systems, Inc. – Mr. Steinberg was lead trial attorney in a 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 certain protocols for streaming from Adobe’s Flash Media Server. Wowza 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. The court also granted Adobe its attorneys’ fees and costs for the motion. This case later settled.
• Trade Secret & Copyright
  • 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 two and a half 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. 
• Trademark & Copyright
  • Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust – Mr. Steinberg was lead trial counsel representing the Trust, which handles the publishing rights to Ansel Adams’ works, in a trademark and copyright related dispute in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The Trust sued an individual and a media company that 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 and copyright 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 national TV. Ultimately the case settled with defendants agreeing not use Ansel Adams' name and likeness. 
• Trademark, Unfair Competition & Contract
  • Getty Trust v. Getty Images – Represented Getty Trust, the owner of the Getty Museum in Los Angeles, in a case filed in the US District Court for 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. 

PTAB Experience

• Peloton Interactive, Inc., v. Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. - Mad Dogg, a company known for popularizing “spin” classes in the 1990s and 2000s, sued Peloton in December 2020 for patent infringement based on two patents in the Eastern District of Texas. Latham filed a motion to dismiss under Section 101 arguing that Mad Dogg’s claimed “inventions” were not patent eligible. Peloton’s motion to dismiss was granted and the case was dismissed without prejudice. A team led by Mr. Steinberg filed two IPRs on the Mad Dogg’s patents and after a trial hearing convinced the PTAB that Mad Dogg’s patents are invalid.
• RetailMeNot, Inc. v. Honey Science LLC – Mr. Steinberg represented Honey Science in a patent infringement lawsuit brought in the US District Court for the District of Delaware. RetailMeNot asserted four coupon code patents against Honey Science. Latham filed a counterclaim asserting a Honey Science patent against RetailMeNot, to which RetailMeNot responded with three petitions (two PGRs and an IPR) at the PTAB attacking the Honey patent making Section 101, 112, and 103 arguments. RetailMeNot moved to stay Honey’s patent based on the filed petitions, and the district court agreed, pending the outcome of the institution decisions. Honey filed POPRs in all three proceedings, and in its detailed decisions denying institution of the two PGRs and the IPR, the PTAB provided 50 page substantive determinations finding the Honey patent claims subject matter eligible under the USPTO 101 Guidelines and non-obvious against the asserted prior art.

Other PTAB Experience

• Mr. Steinberg was part of Latham’s team to successfully obtain final written decision in the PTAB on behalf of Actifio against Delphix, with a sweeping victory, invalidating 109 of 111 challenged claims across five patents; Jaguar Land Rover to defeat Cruise Control Technologies (a shell company of patent troll Empire IP); and Qualtrics to invalidate four of OpinionLab, Inc. patents. Mr. Steinberg also worked with the team that obtained a denial of institution on behalf of AbbVie in Amgen’s IPR petitions filed against AbbVie’s patent covering the block buster biosimilar drug Humira.

Contentious IP Transactions

• AMD v. Intel. Mr. Steinberg represented AMD in a dispute and later settlement and cross license agreement in which Intel agreed to pay AMD US$1.25 billion.