Splunk Takes Legal Action Against Cribl Over Alleged Intellectual Property Misuse

The data platform industry just got a lot messier. Splunk has filed a major lawsuit against Cribl in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging widespread intellectual property violations. The core accusation? Cribl allegedly built its business foundation on Splunk’s proprietary technology, patents, and confidential source code.

The Core Allegations

According to Splunk’s complaint, Cribl’s CEO and Co-founder Clint Sharp developed the company using code he obtained while working at Splunk—without authorization or proper licensing. The lawsuit further claims that Sharp went beyond personal misappropriation and actively encouraged other former Splunk employees (whom Cribl recruited) to bring confidential technical and business documents over to the new venture.

The specific charges include:

• Patent infringement on multiple Splunk-owned patents granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office
• Copyright infringement related to Splunk’s proprietary software
• Unlawful misappropriation of Splunk source code and confidential materials
• Unfair competition practices

Splunk characterizes the situation bluntly: “a business built on the back of Splunk’s labor and intellectual property, without license and without regard for ethics, the rights of others, or the law.”

What’s at Stake

This isn’t a minor patent dispute. Splunk holds over 1,000 patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, underscoring the company’s foundational role in the data platform space. The lawsuit reflects how seriously Splunk views the alleged misconduct and its commitment to protecting innovations that define its market position.

The company stated that it explored other options but ultimately saw no choice but to pursue litigation. From Splunk’s perspective, Cribl’s alleged actions left the company with no alternative.

Industry Implications

While Splunk maintains it won’t change its customer and partner relationships, this lawsuit signals a significant escalation in competitive tensions within the data observability market. The outcome could set important precedents about intellectual property protection in the software infrastructure space, particularly around how knowledge transfers when employees move between competing firms.

The case will likely draw attention from other players in the sector, as questions about fair competition and IP boundaries become increasingly central to the rapidly growing data platform industry.