Injunction & Public Apology
We represented global cybersecurity leader in a dual-front litigation against a third-party analysis and testing company that published a report purporting to rank the quality of our client’s products against competitors in the market. The case was initiated in the District of Delaware, asserting that the results of the third-party testing were false and misleading, and that the third-party testing company had accessed our client’s product illegally and without authorization. Tyz Law Group was brought in to take over the case from prior counsel after an unsuccessful preliminary injunction motion. We reformulated the complaint and the strategy of the case to tell a compelling narrative and story.
We simultaneously defended against the third-party testing company’s counter-tactic of asserting antitrust claims in a separate litigation filed in the Northern District of California, alleging that our client and other security vendors had a purported agreement not to compete regarding testing. We obtained a dismissal of those claims with prejudice at the pleadings phase.
Subsequently, we obtained a highly favorable settlement for our client that required the third-party testing company to publicly acknowledge that its testing was both incomplete and inaccurate. Less than a year later, we prevailed in an action to enforce the settlement, obtaining both an injunction and an award of attorneys’ fees. CrowdStrike, Inc. v. NSS Labs, Inc., 2017 WL 88713 (D. Del. 2017) and NSS Labs, Inc., v. CrowdStrike, Inc. et al., 2019 WL 8275796 (N.D. Cal. December 17, 2019).
Press coverage can be viewed here: