Software company Splunk has filed an appeal after a California federal judge declined to overturn or modify a jury verdict that found a rival infringed its copyrighted software but awarded only nominal damages.

The appeal was lodged Wednesday, shortly after U.S. District Judge William Alsup rejected posttrial motions from both Splunk and defendant Cribl. In its notice, Splunk said it is challenging multiple aspects of the ruling, including the judge’s refusal to grant judgment as a matter of law or order a new trial.

Background of the Dispute

The case stems from a jury verdict issued in April 2024. Jurors concluded that Cribl infringed Splunk’s copyright on certain software components, that the infringement was willful, and that Cribl breached a licensing agreement known as the Splunk General Terms, or SGT, license. Despite those findings, the jury awarded Splunk just $1 in damages.

At the same time, the jury determined that Cribl’s copying of Splunk Enterprise, Splunk’s data storage and analytics platform, qualified as fair use. That conclusion significantly limited Splunk’s recovery.

Judge Rejects Posttrial Challenges

Splunk asked the court to rule that Cribl’s conduct did not qualify as fair use, arguing that multiple statutory factors weighed against it, including the effect of the copying on the market for Splunk’s software. Judge Alsup rejected those arguments.

The court also denied Cribl’s request to overturn the jury’s finding of willful infringement.

Splunk further sought a new trial on damages and on whether Cribl breached a separate agreement known as the Technology Alliance Partner, or TAP, license. The judge declined to grant that request as well.

In a sharply worded order, Alsup criticized Splunk for advancing arguments after trial that were not clearly presented to the jury.

“[T]hese arguments may or may not be the basis for a claim by Splunk against its counselors,” the judge wrote, referring to Splunk’s position that the TAP license should have taken priority over the SGT license. He added that juries cannot be subjected to repeated trials whenever a party develops a new legal theory after losing.

Long-Running Tensions Between Former Partners

Splunk originally sued Cribl in 2022, describing the company as “a business built on the back of Splunk’s labor and intellectual property.”

Cribl was founded by former Splunk employees, and the two companies initially collaborated. In 2018, Splunk granted Cribl a TAP license allowing it to use Splunk Enterprise software. That relationship later deteriorated as Cribl emerged as a competitor.

According to court filings, Splunk terminated the TAP license but allowed Cribl to continue operating under the broader SGT license. The jury ultimately found that Cribl breached the SGT license but did not breach the TAP license.

What Comes Next

With its appeal now pending, Splunk is seeking review of the fair use determination, the damages award, and the trial court’s refusal to grant a new trial or judgment as a matter of law.

Splunk is represented by attorneys from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Cribl is represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.