1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Joachim B. Steinberg

Joachim B. SteinbergCIPP/US

Counsel | CIPP/US | He/Him/His
Counsel | CIPP/US | He/Him/His
anN0ZWluYmVyZ0Bjcm93ZWxsLmNvbQ==
VCardLinkedIn
VCardLinkedIn

Areas of Focus

Overview

Based in both San Francisco and New York, Joachim B. Steinberg (CIPP/US) supports clients in commercial, intellectual property, and technology litigation in courts across the country. He has represented clients in federal and state courts and in arbitration, including trial advocacy and arguments before the Second Circuit.

Joachim represents clients with copyright, trademark, trade secrets, antitrust, and privacy matters. From initial investigations through appeal, he has successfully litigated—or resolved without litigation—claims of trademark infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, theft of trade secrets, and unfair competition.

Joachim’s experience crosses multiple industries, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, software, aeronautics, and video games. He has represented clients ranging from early-phase start-ups to publicly traded companies and large public institutions in all business phases. Joachim actively follows the latest technological developments and has played a leading role in organizing Crowell’s AI Working Group.

Joachim clerked for both the Honorable Eric Clay in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the Honorable Theodore Katz in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

While at NYU Law, Joachim was named best oralist in the final round of the Orison S. Marden Moot Court Competition. He was also a Robert McKay Scholar, development editor for the NYU Annual Survey of American Law, and a student advocate for the New York Civil Liberties Union and was awarded a Vanderbilt Medal for his contributions to the law school. After completing his J.D., Joachim attended the University of Oxford, where he wrote a thesis on conflict of laws and international sales and briefly captained a cricket team. Before attending law school, Joachim taught elementary school in the Bronx.

Joachim also has an established record of community engagement and pro bono service, including immigration asylum work, Section 1983 civil rights litigation, and First Amendment appellate advocacy. He recently represented a domestic violence survivor on appeal, leading to a published California appellate decision. He has served on charitable boards and currently holds leadership or committee roles with the Copyright Society, the International Trademark Association, and the Jewish Bar Association of San Francisco.

Outside of work, Joachim’s interests include Arsenal Football Club, cooking, and whatever train-related activities currently capturing his toddler’s enthusiasm. 

 

 

Career & Education

    • University of Chicago, A.B., general and departmental honors, history
    • New York University School of Law, J.D., cum laude
    • University of Oxford, M.St., legal research
    • University of Chicago, A.B., general and departmental honors, history
    • New York University School of Law, J.D., cum laude
    • University of Oxford, M.St., legal research

    • New York
    • California
    • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
    • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • Supreme Court of the United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • New York
    • California
    • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
    • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • Supreme Court of the United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade

  • Professional Activities and Memberships

    • ABA
      • Intellectual Property Section Task Force on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, 2023–2024
      • Intellectual Property Section Committee on Copyright and New Technologies, 2024–Present
      • Vice-Chair, Intellectual Property Section Digital Games Committee, 2024–Present
    • Copyright Society
      • Member, 2018–Present
      • Co-Chair, Northern California Chapter, 2021–Present
      • Membership Committee, 2024
      • Copyright Adjacent Committee, 2025
    • International Trademark Association
      • Member 2023-Present
      • Committee on Geographic Indicators, 2024
    • Board of Directors, Jewish Bar Association of San Francisco, 2021–Present
    • Fellow, American Bar Foundation, 2022–Present
    • Bar Association of San Francisco Delegation to the California Conference of Bar Associations
      • Delegate, 2016–Present
      • Chair, 2022
    • Chairman of the Board of Directors, San Francisco City Football Club, 2016–2022
    • Member, Edward J. McFetridge American Inn of Court, 2016–2018
    • Board of Directors, AIDS Legal Referral Panel, 2014 – 2018

    Professional Activities and Memberships

    • ABA
      • Intellectual Property Section Task Force on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, 2023–2024
      • Intellectual Property Section Committee on Copyright and New Technologies, 2024–Present
      • Vice-Chair, Intellectual Property Section Digital Games Committee, 2024–Present
    • Copyright Society
      • Member, 2018–Present
      • Co-Chair, Northern California Chapter, 2021–Present
      • Membership Committee, 2024
      • Copyright Adjacent Committee, 2025
    • International Trademark Association
      • Member 2023-Present
      • Committee on Geographic Indicators, 2024
    • Board of Directors, Jewish Bar Association of San Francisco, 2021–Present
    • Fellow, American Bar Foundation, 2022–Present
    • Bar Association of San Francisco Delegation to the California Conference of Bar Associations
      • Delegate, 2016–Present
      • Chair, 2022
    • Chairman of the Board of Directors, San Francisco City Football Club, 2016–2022
    • Member, Edward J. McFetridge American Inn of Court, 2016–2018
    • Board of Directors, AIDS Legal Referral Panel, 2014 – 2018

Joachim's Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.03.26

The Pipe, Not the Posts: How Section 230’s Protections Extend to Generative AI Platforms

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”) protects online platforms from liability for user-generated speech. Based on the premise that platforms generally do not create original content but instead curate their users’ own speech, Section 230’s protections have historically applied to a platform’s algorithmically assembled, selected or sequenced content; algorithms or features that amplified or directed user generated speech to particular users were generally protected. Indeed, the old rule of thumb was the more a platform used algorithms or automation, the more likely user generated speech remained user generated speech. GenAI has the potential to change that calculus. A platform that ingests user generated content and publishes a transformed output, can blur Section 230’s line between publication and creation. The central question is whether Section 230 protects GenAI, which analyzes, but does not alter, user-created content to produce an outcome, and its corresponding outputs....

View All Insights

Representative Matters

  • Secured jury verdict, judgment and eight figure damages award following weeks’ long trial in Delaware Superior Court for c3.ai, a leading Enterprise AI software and application company, in novel matter alleging its former customer, diesel engine manufacturer Cummins Inc., misappropriated c3.ai's trade secrets and breached the parties’ contract by studying c3.ai's trade secrets and replicating them into Cummins' own application.
  • Represented a technology start-up in an appeal before the Second Circuit in a trademark infringement case.
  • Provided legal services for a major producer of airplane parts in trade secrets litigation over critical internal technology.
  • Represented a municipality in antitrust litigation against several large banks for rate-fixing related to variable rate bonds.
  • Represented a video-game company in intellectual property claims related to the “print on demand” industry, securing a favorable settlement.
  • Represented a Canadian technology company in patent and trademark litigation over virtualization software, leading to a substantial jury verdict.
  • Assisted client in FINRA arbitration proceedings.
  • Argued a summary judgment motion in a civil rights case against a police department.

Joachim's Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.03.26

The Pipe, Not the Posts: How Section 230’s Protections Extend to Generative AI Platforms

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”) protects online platforms from liability for user-generated speech. Based on the premise that platforms generally do not create original content but instead curate their users’ own speech, Section 230’s protections have historically applied to a platform’s algorithmically assembled, selected or sequenced content; algorithms or features that amplified or directed user generated speech to particular users were generally protected. Indeed, the old rule of thumb was the more a platform used algorithms or automation, the more likely user generated speech remained user generated speech. GenAI has the potential to change that calculus. A platform that ingests user generated content and publishes a transformed output, can blur Section 230’s line between publication and creation. The central question is whether Section 230 protects GenAI, which analyzes, but does not alter, user-created content to produce an outcome, and its corresponding outputs....

View All Insights

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.03.26

The Pipe, Not the Posts: How Section 230’s Protections Extend to Generative AI Platforms

Press Coverage | 07.23.26

Universities drop AI detection tools over fears about accuracy

Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.29.26

When Trade Secret Theft Becomes Racketeering: What the Fifth Circuit’s New Ruling Means

Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26

Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim

View All Insights

Practices

Industries

Joachim's Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.03.26

The Pipe, Not the Posts: How Section 230’s Protections Extend to Generative AI Platforms

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”) protects online platforms from liability for user-generated speech. Based on the premise that platforms generally do not create original content but instead curate their users’ own speech, Section 230’s protections have historically applied to a platform’s algorithmically assembled, selected or sequenced content; algorithms or features that amplified or directed user generated speech to particular users were generally protected. Indeed, the old rule of thumb was the more a platform used algorithms or automation, the more likely user generated speech remained user generated speech. GenAI has the potential to change that calculus. A platform that ingests user generated content and publishes a transformed output, can blur Section 230’s line between publication and creation. The central question is whether Section 230 protects GenAI, which analyzes, but does not alter, user-created content to produce an outcome, and its corresponding outputs....

View All Insights