Rocket Software, Inc. v. CollegeNET, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ROCKET SOFTWARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and ROCKET SOFTWARE B.V., a Netherlands private limited company, No. 3:22-cv-00327-AR Plaintiffs/Counter- Defendants, OPINION AND ORDER v. COLLEGENET, INC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant/Counter Claimant.

BAGGIO, District Judge: I. INTRODUCTION On March 14, 2025, Magistrate Judge Jeff Armistead issued Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”, ECF 107) that recommended denying Plaintiff/Counter-defendants Rocket Software, Inc.’s and Rocket Software, B.V.’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion for partial summary judgment (ECF 77) and granting in part and denying in part Defendant/Counterclaimant CollegeNET’s (“Defendant”) motion for summary judgment (ECF 80). Plaintiffs filed limited objections (“Objs.”, ECF 109) and Defendant responded (“Resp.”, ECF 111). As set forth below, the Courts adopts the F&R in full.

II. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C). If a party objects, the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made.” Id. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court is not, however, required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023). While the level of scrutiny that the court applies to its F&R review depends on whether a party has filed objections, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.

III. CONCLUSION Upon review, the Court agrees with Judge Armistead’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the F&R (ECF 107) in full. Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment [77] is DENIED.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [80] is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs’ copyright infringement and willful infringement claims and DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims. /// /// /// Within 30 days of the date that this order is filed, the parties are directed to provide the Court with at least four mutually agreeable times and dates for the Court to hold a thirty minute in person case scheduling conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 13th day of May 2025.

Any MA. Faggee AMYW. BAGGIO United States District Judge — OPINION AND ORDER