On Appeal
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.”
Cross Appeal
1. “Whether the district court committed reversible error in finding that any unlicensed, incidental copying of Splunk’s copyrighted object code arising from Cribl’s downloading and execution of Splunk Enterprise for purposes of testing and troubleshooting to maintain interoperability with Cribl Stream was a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.”
2. “Whether the district court correctly interpreted provisions of the parties’ agreements to allow for the fair use of Splunk Enterprise software, including through reverse-engineering, testing, and troubleshooting.”
3. “Whether there is any basis to remand for a new trial or revisit the scope of the injunction.”
4. “Whether the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,762,443 and 10,805,438 are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
“Conditional Cross-Appeal:”
5. “Only to the extent this Court disturbs any copyright aspect of the judgment or injunction below, whether the district court erred in denying Cribl’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law as to willful copyright infringement.”
