IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—D. Utah: Utah education board wins immunity in curriculum dispute, (Jun 22, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

A curriculum vendor’s copyright and business interference claims failed after a federal court determined that Utah’s education board is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity as an arm of the state.

A longstanding curriculum provider for Utah’s Mandarin language immersion program cannot pursue copyright infringement and related business tort claims against the Utah State Board of Education because the board is shielded by Eleventh Amendment immunity, a federal court has concluded. The ruling stems from the board’s decision to stop purchasing the company’s online language-learning licenses and instead work with a competing vendor (Mandarin Matrix Ltd. v. Utah State Board Of Education, No. 2:25-cv-01067-DBB-CMR (D. Utah Jun. 18, 2026)).

Background. The lawsuit was filed by Mandarin Matrix Limited, a Hong Kong company, and its U.S. affiliate, Mandarin Matrix Inc., which had supplied curriculum materials for Utah’s Chinese Dual Language Immersion program since 2014. According to the complaint, the companies provided printed educational materials and access to an online platform known as the Mandarin Matrix Online Classroom to schools participating in the statewide program.

Mandarin Matrix alleged that tensions developed after a dispute over license pricing for the 2024-2025 school year. According to the Mandarin Matrix, the state board’s World Languages and Dual Language Immersion Specialist and its Chinese Dual Language Immersion Director refused to adjust pricing after sixth-grade funding was removed from the program, reducing student enrollment. Mandarin Matrix contended that the dispute created personal animosity that later contributed to the decision to replace the company with another curriculum provider.

In May 2025, Mandarin Matrix was informed that the board would no longer purchase its licenses and would instead contract with a competing vendor. The company alleged that education officials had been planning the transition for months while continuing discussions about future pricing and curriculum matters without disclosing their intentions.

Mandarin Matrix further alleged that state education officials continued directing teachers to use its online platform after the relationship ended, infringing copyrights covering its educational materials and software platform. The complaint also asserted claims for tortious interference with prospective economic relations and civil conspiracy.

Immunity. The school board argued that all claims were barred by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. It also maintained that the claims against the individual education officials could not proceed under the Ex parte Young exception and that the state-law claims were independently barred by the Utah Governmental Immunity Act.

The ruling focused primarily on whether the board qualifies as an arm of the state. To answer that question, the court examined four factors: how Utah law characterizes the entity, the degree of autonomy it possesses, its financial structure, and whether it primarily addresses state or local concerns.

On the first factor, the court found substantial support for treating the board as a state entity. Utah statutes include boards among the governmental instrumentalities comprising the state, and prior decisions have repeatedly treated the Utah State Board of Education and related education agencies as arms of the state entitled to sovereign immunity.

The autonomy analysis produced a more mixed result. The court noted that board members are elected rather than appointed by the governor, the board selects its own leadership, and it exercises significant authority over educational policy. At the same time, its employees are state employees subject to state retirement and employment systems, and the attorney general represents the board in litigation. After weighing those considerations, the court determined that the autonomy factor was essentially neutral.

Financial dependence. The board’s financial structure played a central role in the outcome. The court found that it is funded almost entirely through state and federal tax revenues appropriated by the Utah Legislature. The board cannot levy taxes or issue bonds and lacks independent resources sufficient to satisfy the nearly $13 million in damages sought by Mandarin Matrix. Any judgment against the board would ultimately be paid through legislative appropriations or Utah’s Risk Management Fund, which itself receives state appropriations.

Those facts strongly favored arm-of-the-state status because the Eleventh Amendment is designed in part to protect state treasuries from liability. The final factor likewise favored immunity. Utah law grants the board general control and supervision over the state’s public education system, making its responsibilities statewide rather than local in nature. The court described that consideration as weighing unequivocally in favor of treating the board as an arm of the state. After reviewing all four factors, the court concluded that three favored sovereign immunity, and none clearly supported Mandarin Matrix’s position.

State dignity. The court further examined what it described as the twin purposes of the Eleventh Amendment: protecting state treasuries and preserving state dignity. Unlike a commercially oriented public corporation operating independently of state government, the board was created by the Utah Constitution to oversee public education and operates primarily with legislatively appropriated funds. Because the board is financially dependent on the state and performs core governmental functions, allowing the suit to proceed would implicate both the state's fiscal interests and sovereign dignity. Accordingly, the court determined that the board qualifies as an arm of the state and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Prospective relief. Mandarin Matrix argued that its claims against the individual education officials could proceed under the Ex parte Young doctrine, which permits suits seeking prospective relief to halt ongoing violations of federal law. The company pointed to its copyright claims and requests for injunctive relief requiring the cessation of allegedly infringing activities and the destruction of infringing materials.

The court acknowledged that the complaint alleged an ongoing violation of federal copyright law and sought certain forms of prospective relief. However, it concluded that the complaint also sought damages for past conduct, including statutory damages, actual damages, and punitive damages. Such relief is retrospective and therefore falls outside the Ex parte Young exception.

The court also emphasized that Mandarin Matrix sued the Utah State Board of Education directly. Because Ex parte Young applies only to suits against state officials, and not against states or state agencies themselves, the doctrine could not preserve the claims under the circumstances presented.

Copyright claims. The defendants alternatively sought dismissal of the copyright infringement claims for failure to state a claim. The court declined to address those arguments after determining that sovereign immunity deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction.

Likewise, it did not decide whether the Utah Governmental Immunity Act independently barred the state-law claims for tortious interference and civil conspiracy. Having found Eleventh Amendment immunity dispositive, the court concluded that further analysis was unnecessary.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-01067-DBB-CMR.

Judge: Barlow, D.

Attorneys: Karthik Narayan Sonty (Parsons Behle & Latimer PC) for Mandarin Matrix Ltd. Arthur B. Berger (Ray Quinney & Nebeker PC) for Utah State Board of Education.

Companies: Mandarin Matrix Ltd.

Cases: Copyright UtahNews