Plus One Robotics, Inc. v. Artificial Intelligence Industry Association, Inc. and Artificial Intelligence Imaging Association, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT August 03, 2026 WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS W CL E E ST R E K R , N U . D S. I S D T IS R T IC R T IC O T F C T O E U X R A T S SAN ANTONIO DIVISION NM BY: ________________________________ DEPUTY PLUS ONE ROBOTICS, INC., § § Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, § § v. § § NO. SA-25-CV-1197-OLG-HJB ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE § INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, INC., § and ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE § IMAGING ASSOCIATION, INC., § § Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed July 16, 2026, concerning Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Strike. (See Dkt. No. 38.) The parties, through counsel, were electronically served with a copy of the R&R on July 16, 2026, and the time to object has passed. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2) (providing that objections must be filed within 14 days after service of the R&R). Because no party filed objections, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear errors and finds none. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection is made.”) Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection is made.”). After such review, the Court finds that the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. No. 38) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Strike (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, counterclaims VI, VII, and VIII are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs’ first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth affirmative defenses are STRICKEN. It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED on August 3, 2026. oN

ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge