LICENSEWARE
Contribute

eScholar v. Nebraska Department of Education

From the LICENSEWARE WikiLast edited 2 ReferencesCited

This article is about the District of Nebraska ruling in a dispute between a student-data software vendor and a state education department that stopped renewing its licence and moved to its own system. It follows the court's published orders from 2020; the later outcome was not found in the records read. It is not legal advice.

On This Page

eScholar v. Nebraska Department of Education is a case in the District of Nebraska in which eScholar LLC, a software developer for educational institutions, sued a state education department that had used its Uniq-ID student identifier system under licence since 2004. The allegations below are eScholar’s, as recorded in the court’s orders, unless stated otherwise.

Background

Uniq-ID lets licensees assign and manage unique identifiers for students in K-12 schools, early childhood programmes and public universities, and collects data under a student’s profile to prevent duplicate records when a student changes school or district. eScholar first developed it in 2003; it had gone through eleven versions, eight of them registered with the US Copyright Office. On 1 November 2004 eScholar and the Nebraska Department of Education (NDE) signed a Software License Agreement. Its governing law clause chose Nebraska law and said “the parties consent to the jurisdiction of the federal and state court of Nebraska for any legal action arising out of this Agreement”.[2]

The dispute

The relationship ran from 2004 until 15 January 2020, when NDE’s chief information officer, Dean Folkers, emailed a memorandum saying NDE would not renew the licence for 2020, with effect retroactive to 1 November 2019. eScholar then learned that NDE had replaced Uniq-ID with its own “ADVISOR Person ID” system, and alleged that NDE had reverse-engineered Uniq-ID and copied elements such as data fields, layout, look and feel on ADVISOR’s “Compare” and “Student Information” pages, in breach of the licence and of federal and state law.[2]

eScholar sued NDE on 6 March 2020 for copyright infringement and breach of contract and moved for a preliminary injunction on 7 April 2020. On 13 April 2020 the court ordered it to show cause why the copyright claim should not be dismissed, citing the Supreme Court’s decision of 23 March 2020 in Allen v. Cooper, which held that states keep their sovereign immunity against copyright claims.[1] eScholar amended its complaint to rely on the forum selection clause as a waiver, added Mr Folkers and a second official, Matt Hastings, as defendants for injunctive relief, and pleaded rescission and breach of the licence, copyright infringement and a violation of the Nebraska Trade Secrets Act.[2]

Decision or outcome

On 28 October 2020 the court ruled on the defendants’ immunity-based motion to dismiss and eScholar’s injunction motion.

  • Waiver by the licence. The court applied the stringent test for waiving a state’s immunity from suit in federal court. It held the forum selection clause permitted the contract claim, rescission and breach of the licence, to proceed against NDE, but that the statutory copyright and trade secret claims did not arise out of the agreement, so immunity had not been waived for them. They were dismissed against NDE.[2]
  • Officials. The court held the claim for prospective injunctive relief against Mr Folkers and Mr Hastings could proceed under the Ex parte Young doctrine even though they were named in their individual capacities.[2]
  • Preliminary injunction. Denied. Assuming eScholar had some chance of success, the court found its alleged irreparable harm speculative and likely compensable in money, noting eScholar’s own statement that it had invested USD 15 million in the software and that the parties had previously priced a licence. It also found that forcing NDE to shut down its student tracking system during the pandemic would harm NDE and the public.[2]

The orders read stop there; later proceedings were not found.

Significance for software licensing and SAM practice

The ruling is mostly about where and against whom a vendor can sue a public customer, but it illustrates an end-of-licence risk. A customer that stops renewing and moves to an in-house or other replacement may face an allegation that the replacement copies the licensed product, and the licence’s own restrictions (here against reverse engineering) become the contract claim that survives immunity. No finding was read on whether ADVISOR copied Uniq-ID.

Lessons learned

  • Read the forum clause as a waiver risk. A clause consenting to federal and state courts in the state was enough for the contract claim, though not the statutory ones.[2]
  • Document how a replacement is built. The vendor’s claim rested on similarity of fields and screens between the old and new systems.[2]
  • Check the termination mechanics before announcing non-renewal. The retroactive effective date was one of the facts pleaded when the vendor sought rescission and damages.[2]
  • Courts weigh public impact. The injunction was refused partly because shutting a state’s student tracking system would harm the public.[2]

References

  1. eScholar, LLC v. Nebraska Department of Education, No. 8:20-cv-135, Order to Show Cause (D. Neb. Apr. 13, 2020)Doc. 14, Chief Judge John M. Gerrard. govinfo.gov, U.S. Government Publishing OfficeEffective 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2026-10-08.
  2. eScholar LLC v. Nebraska Department of Education, No. 8:20-cv-135, Memorandum and Order (D. Neb. Oct. 28, 2020)Doc. 42, Chief Judge John M. Gerrard. govinfo.gov, U.S. Government Publishing OfficeEffective 2020-10-28. Retrieved 2026-10-08.

See also

Esc