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.
