Software breach of contract expert witnesses for failed projects, specs disputes, and licensing conflicts. Source‑code review, standards, cost/schedule, testimony.
Software projects fail for many reasons, such as unclear requirements, changing scope, integration complexity, underestimated schedules, and quality issues. In breach of contract disputes, the court needs clear, technical answers: What did the contract require? What was delivered? Did it meet the agreed specifications and professional standards?
Cyberonix provides independent, code‑grounded analysis to help counsel and fact‑finders understand what happened, why it happened, and whether the technical record supports or refutes breach allegations in software development, SaaS, licensing, and implementation disputes.
Common Software Contract Dispute Questions We Address
- Did the software meet the statement of work (SOW), requirements, acceptance criteria, and warranties?
- Were delays driven by scope changes, dependency failures, or engineering choices inconsistent with standard practice?
- Were deliverables “done” in a meaningful engineering sense (quality, stability, security), or merely shipped?
- Was a licensing agreement followed (usage restrictions, deployments, third‑party components)?
- What is a reasonable time and cost to build what was promised, given the technology stack?
Services We Provide
- Contract analysis (MSA/SOW, exhibits, acceptance criteria, warranties)
- Licensing agreement evaluation (use rights, deployment limits, compliance)
- Dev. process evaluation (SDLC, requirements management, change control)
- Source code/design artifact review (architecture, decisions, traceability)
- Quality eval of deliverables (testing evidence, defect data, reproducibility)
- Industry standards and best practices assessment (process & engr. norms)
- Schedule and cost estimation (reasonable cost of build/repair/complete)
- Expert reports, deposition testimony, and trial testimony
Evidence We Commonly Review
- Contract set (MSA/SOW/order forms), requirements, acceptance criteria
- Architecture/design docs, sprint artifacts, tickets, QA plans and results
- Source repositories (commit history, branching strategy, code review records)
- Build/release pipelines, logs, deployments, configuration files
- Defect databases, incident reports, post‑mortems, customer communications
Selected Prior Engagements
The Hertz Corporation v. Accenture LLP
- Retaining party: Accenture LLP
- Venue: Southern District of New York
- Case No.: 1:19-cv-03508-WHP
- Counsel: Wiggin and Dana LLP
- Nature of suit: Breach of Contract
Entri LLC v. GoDaddy.com LLC
- Retaining party: Entri LLC
- Venue: Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division
- Case No.: 1:24-cv-0069-AJT-WEF
- Counsel: McGuireWoods LLP
- Nature of suit: Antitrust; Breach of Contract; Computer Fraud and Abuse
Chrome Systems Inc. v. Internet Brands Inc., Autodata Solutions Inc., et al.
- Retaining party: Chrome Systems Inc.
- Venue: Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc.
- Case No.: 1340012931
- Counsel: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
- Nature of suit: Intellectual Property – Software License
Lotchinbek Samatov, Jakhongir Samatov, and SSD Software Solutions v. AirShowBuzz
- Retaining party: Lotchinbek Samatov, Jakhongir Samatov, and SSD Software Solutions
- Venue: Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles Central District
- Case No.: BC488092
- Counsel: Michelman & Robinson LLP
- Nature of suit: Breach of Contract
Matter of Position Mobile Ltd SEZC
- Retaining Party: Technology Investment Consortium, LLC
- Venue: Grand Court of the Cayman Islands
- Case No.: FSD 79 OF 2022 (DDJ)
- Counsel: Dinner Martin Attorneys t/a Dentons
- Nature of suit: Breach of Contract; Intellectual Property – Trade Secret
HOV Services Inc. v. ASG Technologies Group Inc.
- Retaining party: HOV Services Inc.
- Venue: Southern District of New York
- Case No.: 1:18-cv-09780-PKC
- Counsel: Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP
- Nature of suit: Breach of Contract, Software License, and Copyright
