IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
QPRIVACY USA LLC, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-855-RWS-RSP §
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., §
§
Defendant. §
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff QPrivacy USA LLC’s Complaint. Docket No. 21. All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. Docket No. 40.
On August 29, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending the motion be denied. Docket No. 58 at 6. The Magistrate Judge held that Plaintiff’s complaint stated claims for relief against Defendant for patent infringement, including claims for direct infringement, induced infringement, contributory infringement, and willful infringement. Id. at 2–6. The parties received the report and recommendation through the Court’s electronic filing system on the same day that the Report and Recommendation was issued, but, to date, no objections have been received.
Because no objections have been received, Defendant is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017). Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See id.; Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021).
2The Court has reviewed the motion, the briefing associated with the motion, the pleadings in this case, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the . Court has determined the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 58) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. It is further
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 21) is DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 22nd day of September, 2025.