1. “Whether the district court erred in holding that Cribl’s repeated, ongoing downloading, copying, and executing of the entire copyrighted Splunk Enterprise software to test and troubleshoot Cribl Stream were ‘fair uses’ under Section 107 of the Copyright Act, where these uses were not transformative, were overwhelmingly commercial, and caused market harm to Splunk.” 2. “Whether the district court erred in interpreting the SGT and TAP agreements.” 3. “Whether remand is warranted to revise the permanent injunction where the district court’s erroneous rulings on fair use and on contract interpretation tainted its injunction analysis.” 4. “Whether the district court erred in holding at the pleadings stage that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,762,443 and 10,805,438 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
