DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

TBMP 408.01(b) [ ] The Board adopted a disclosure regime in order to promote the early exchange of information and settlement and, for cases that do not settle, “more efficient discovery and trial, [reduction of] incidents of unfair surprise, and [to] increase the likelihood of fair disposition of the parties’ claims and defenses.” In addition, the utilization of routine disclosures of the types provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is intended to “obviate the need to use traditional discovery to obtain ‘basic information’ about a party’s claims or defenses.” ( Miscellaneous Changes to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Rules, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42244 and 42246 (August 1, 2007)).


Each party in an opposition or cancellation proceeding before the TTAB (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board) is equally obligated to ensure that a discovery conference takes place by the assigned deadline. See Promgirl, Inc. v. JPC Co., 94 USPQ2d 1759 (TTAB 2009) (responsibility to schedule a conference and to confer on each of the topics outlined in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and the institution order is a shared responsibility); Guthy-Renker Corp. v. Boyd, 88 USPQ2d 1701, 1703 (TTAB 2008) ("it is the equal responsibility of both parties to ensure that the discovery conference takes place by the assigned deadline"); and Influance, Inc. v. Zuker, 88 USPQ2d 1859, 1860 n. 2 (TTAB 2008) (holding discovery conference is a mutual obligation).

Prakash Melwani v. Allegiance Corp. (TTAB 2010).


SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES: One of the parties may file a consented "Notice of Waiver of Initial Disclosures," wherein the parties agreed to "waive any requirement to make initial disclosures in this proceeding." Trademark Rules 2.120(a)(2) and 2.120(a)(3), as amended, allow parties to modify the discovery and trial schedule, including the deadline for making initial disclosures, if the parties file, and the Board approves, a stipulation or motion to that effect. Parties must inform the Board, by stipulation or motion, any time they agree to modify their obligations under the rules governing disclosures and discovery, as well as when they agree to modify deadlines or schedules that involve disclosures, discovery, trial or briefing. Such modifications are subject to Board approval. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 29, and Trademark Rule 2.116.

In the August 1, 2007 Notice of Final Rulemaking, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246, the Board specifically contemplated that parties might agree to "forego disclosures and agree to utilize only traditional discovery devices." When the parties file a stipulation, motion, or notice regarding waiver of initial disclosures, the Board strongly prefers the parties to include a description of the parties' alternate plans for discovery, even if such plans merely provide for use of traditional discovery devices such as depositions, interrogatories, requests for production or inspection, and requests for admission. As discussed in the Notice of Final Rulemaking, this description need not be extensive, although it should report any agreements to limit use of these discovery devices, allow for participation in depositions by telephone, and the like.

BOSTON v. HARRY F. CHAVERIAT III, 87 U.S.P.Q.2d 1767 (TTAB 2008).


THINGS TO DISCUSS IN THE DISCOVERY CONFERENCE:

(1) the nature of and basis for their respective claims and defenses,

(2) the possibility of settling the case or at least narrowing the scope of claims or defenses, and

(3) arrangements relating to disclosures, discovery and introduction of evidence at trial, should the parties not agree to settle the case.

Example: Nature of Responses: Parties are expected to discuss the format for production of documents during their mandatory discovery conference. However, in Board cases, parties often extend each other the courtesy of producing requested documents by copying the documents and forwarding them to the requesting party at the requesting party’s expense. Indeed, the Board believes this is more efficient and thus encourages this method of producing documents.


TBMP 501.02 Filing Stipulations

37 CFR § 2.120(a)(2) [Discovery] …The parties may stipulate to a shortening of the discovery period. The discovery period may be extended upon stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. . . Disclosure deadlines and obligations may be modified upon written stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. . . . The parties are not required to prepare or transmit to the Board a written report outlining their discovery conference discussions, unless the parties have agreed to alter disclosure or discovery obligations set forth by these rules or applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or unless directed to file such a report by a participating Board Interlocutory Attorney or Administrative Trademark Judge.

37 CFR § 2.120(a)(3) [Discovery] …A party must make its initial disclosures prior to seeking discovery, absent modification of this requirement by a stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or a motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board.

37 CFR § 2.121(d) [Assignment of times for taking testimony] When parties stipulate to the rescheduling of a deadline for pretrial disclosures and subsequent testimony periods or to the rescheduling of the closing date for discovery and the rescheduling of deadlines for pretrial disclosures and testimony periods, a stipulation presented in the form used in a trial order, signed by the parties, or a motion in said form signed by one party and including a statement that every other party has agreed thereto, shall be submitted to the Board.

Stipulations which require action or consideration by the Board, such as stipulations to extend a defendant's time to file an answer to the complaint, stipulations to alter the length of the discovery period or disclosure obligations occurring during the discovery period, stipulations to waive required initial disclosures, stipulations to reschedule pretrial disclosures and subsequent trial dates, stipulations to extend trial dates, stipulations relating to the form of testimony, and stipulations to end a proceeding in a specified way, must be filed with the Board. (Emphasis added) [Note 1.] Some other types of stipulations, such as stipulations to extend a party's time for responding to a request for discovery, do not necessarily have to be filed with the Board. However, even in the case of a stipulation that does not have to be filed, the better practice is to reduce the stipulation to writing, in order to avoid any misunderstanding between the parties as to the existence and terms thereof.

NOTES: 1. 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(2); 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(3); 37 CFR § 2.121(d).


Examples of Stipulations Available In A TTAB Proceeding

(not an exhaustive list)


 

TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE

TBMP June 2015

Chapter 400 DISCOVERY


TBMP 401    37 CFR §  2.120(a)(1)   Wherever appropriate, the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to disclosure and discovery shall apply in opposition, cancellation, interference and concurrent use registration proceedings except as otherwise provided in this section. The provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 relating to required disclosures, the conference of the parties to discuss settlement and develop a disclosure and discovery plan, the scope, timing and sequence of discovery, protective orders, signing of disclosures and discovery responses, and supplementation of disclosures and discovery responses, are applicable to Board proceedings in modified form . . . . The Board will specify the deadline for a discovery conference, the opening and closing dates for the taking of discovery, and the deadlines within the discovery period for making initial disclosures and expert disclosure. The trial order setting these deadlines and dates will be included with the notice of institution of the proceeding.


Through the use of the various disclosures (i.e., initial and expert) and discovery devices (i.e., discovery depositions, interrogatories, requests for production of documents and things, and requests for admission) available to litigants in inter partes proceedings before the Board, a party may ascertain the facts underlying its adversary’s case. Discovery of these facts may lead to a settlement of the case, may simplify the issues, or may reveal a basis for a motion for summary judgment, an additional claim (in the case of a plaintiff), or an additional defense or counterclaim (in the case of a defendant). At the very least, taking discovery enables the propounding party to propose to the responding party stipulations of fact, stipulations as to procedures for introducing into the record evidence produced in response to discovery requests, and to otherwise prepare for trial. Propounding and responding to discovery may further lead parties to stipulate to narrowing the issues for trial, or to stipulate to expedited determination of their case under the Board’s Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR) process. [Note 1.] See TBMP § 528.05(a)(2), TBMP §702.04 and TBMP § 705 for information regarding ACR and stipulations.


The conduct of discovery in Board inter partes proceedings is governed by 37 CFR § 2.120. Discovery before the Board under 37 CFR § 2.120  is similar in many respects to discovery before the federal district courts under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ordinarily, the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable in Board inter partes proceedings, except as otherwise provided in 37 CFR § 2.120. The provisions of the Federal Rules relating to automatic disclosure and discovery conferences are not applicable in inter partes proceedings commenced prior to November 1, 2007. [Note 2.] However, for inter partes proceedings commenced on or after November 1, 2007, the Board has adopted a modified disclosure and conferencing regime. [Note 3.] For cases commenced on or after November 1, 2007, all involved parties are obliged to (1) conduct a discovery conference to discuss disclosure and discovery plans, and (2) make initial, expert, and pretrial disclosures. The Board adopted the disclosure regime of the Federal Rules in order to promote the early exchange of information and earlier settlement of cases and, for cases that do not settle, “more efficient discovery and trial, [reduction of] incidents of unfair surprise, and [to] increase the likelihood of fair disposition of the parties’ claims and defenses.” [Note 4.] In addition, the utilization of initial and expert disclosures is intended to “obviate the need to use traditional discovery to obtain ‘basic information’ about a party’s claims or defenses.” [Note 5.] In the absence of any express written statement from the parties filed with the Board that they waive their reciprocal rights to obtain disclosures, or agree to restrictions on the use of particular discovery devices, the Board will presume the parties will comply with their obligation to make all required disclosures and will utilize traditional discovery devices, as permitted by the Trademark Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Note 6.]


For more information regarding discovery conferences, see TBMP § 401.01 and TBMP §408.01(a).


For a discussion of when discovery requests, discovery responses, and disclosures should be filed with the Board, see TBMP § 409.


For information regarding pretrial disclosures, see TBMP § 702.01.


For information regarding Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR), see TBMP § 528.05(a)(2) and TBMP § 702.04.


NOTES:


1. For a discussion of the purposes served by discovery, see Fischer Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. Molnar & Co., 203 USPQ 861, 865 (TTAB 1979). See also Bison Corp. v. Perfecta Chemie B.V., 4 USPQ2d 1718, 1720 (TTAB 1987); Smith International, Inc. v. Olin Corp., 201 USPQ 250, 250 (TTAB 1978). For a discussion of ACR, see, for example, Eveready Battery Co., Inc. v. Green Planet, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1511, 1513 (TTAB 2009).


2. See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242 (August 1, 2007). See also Midwestern Pet Foods Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1437-38 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (pre-2007 procedures did not call for disclosures).


3. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42244-47 (August 1, 2007); 37 CFR § 2.120; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).


4. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42244 and 42246 (August 1, 2007). See also Luster Products Inc. v. Van Zandt, 104 USPQ2d 1877, 1879-80 n.5 (TTAB 2012) (citing August 1, 2007 final rule); Spier Wines (PTY) Ltd. v. Shepher, 105 USPQ2d 1239, 1246 (TTAB 2012) (disclosures, from initial through pretrial, and discovery responses should be viewed as a continuum of communication designed to avoid unfair surprise and to facilitate a fair adjudication of the case on the merits); General Council of the Assemblies of God v. Heritage Music Foundation, 97 USPQ2d 1890, 1893 (TTAB 2011) (adoption of disclosure model intended to provide an orderly administration of the proceeding as it moves to trial).


5. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42244 and 42246 (August 1, 2007).


6. Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Chaveriat, 87 USPQ2d 1767, 1767-68 (TTAB 2008).


TBMP 401.01    Discovery Conferences

37 CFR §  2.120(a)(1)   ... The provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure relating to ... the conference of the parties to discuss settlement and develop a disclosure and discovery plan, ... are applicable to Board proceedings in modified form ... The Board will specify the deadline for a discovery conference ...


37 CFR § 2.120(a)(2)  The discovery conference shall occur no later than the opening of the discovery period, and the parties must discuss the subjects set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and any subjects set forth in the Board’s institution order. A Board Interlocutory Attorney or Administrative Trademark Judge will participate in the conference upon request of any party made after answer but no later than ten days prior to the deadline for the conference. The participating attorney or judge may expand or reduce the number or nature of subjects to be discussed in the conference as may be deemed appropriate... The parties are not required to prepare or transmit to the Board a written report outlining their discovery conference discussions, unless the parties have agreed to alter disclosure or discovery obligations set forth by these rules or applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or unless directed to file such a report by a participating Board Interlocutory Attorney or Administrative Trademark Judge.


Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2) Conference Content; Parties’ Responsibilities. ... In conferring, the parties must consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case; ... discuss any issues about preserving discoverable information...


For inter partes proceedings commenced on or after November 1, 2007, the parties are required to hold a discovery conference to discuss the subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and in the institution order for the case. [Note 1.] As specified in the Board’s institution order:


“[T]he parties are required to schedule and to participate with each other in a discovery conference by the deadline in the schedule. For guidance, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), Trademark Rule 2.120(a)(2), and TBMP § 401.01. In the conference, the parties are required to discuss (1) the nature of and basis for their respective claims and defenses, (2) the possibility of settling or at least narrowing the scope of claims or defenses, and (3) arrangements for disclosures, discovery and introduction of evidence at trial, if the parties are unable to settle at this time.


Discussion of amendments of otherwise prescribed procedures can include limitations on disclosures and/or discovery, willingness to stipulate to facts, and willingness to stipulate to more efficient options for introducing at trial information or materials obtained through disclosures or discovery.”


The conference is not limited to the subjects listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) or in the Board’s institution order and “the parties are free to discuss any additional topics that could promote settlement or efficient adjudication of the Board proceeding,” including alternative means for adjudication such as the Board’s Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR) procedure. [Note 2.] See TBMP § 528.05(a)(2) and TBMP § 702.04 for further information on ACR. Because the parties may enter into stipulations altering disclosure obligations, they should continue to discuss their reciprocal obligations, and progress made in satisfying such obligations, even after the discovery conference has been held.


The conference should take place once the pleadings have closed by the deadline set forth in the Board’s institution order (or by any extended deadline approved by the Board), and must take place no later than the opening of the discovery period. [Note 3.] In instances, however, where the defendant is in default, or a pleading motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 has been filed, or a counterclaim has been filed, the parties’ obligation to have a discovery conference is effectively stayed. [Note 4.] The rationale is that an answer must be filed to all claims and counterclaims, and issues related to the pleadings resolved before the parties can have a meaningful discovery conference. [Note 5.] In such cases, the Board will reset the deadline for the discovery conference as well as all subsequent dates, upon resolution of the default, or Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 motion, or acknowledgement of the counterclaim, which may include setting or resetting the deadline for filing an answer. [Note 6.] Generally after an answer is filed, the Board is unlikely to find good cause to extend the deadline for the discovery conference for settlement negotiations, even upon stipulation or consent. [Note 7.] There is no Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) scheduling/conference order.


The parties’ discovery conference may be in person or by other means (e.g. telephone). [Note 8.] If any party wants a Board professional to participate in the required discovery conference, the party must call the Board attorney assigned to the case or file such request through ESTTA (Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals), the Board’s electronic filing system, no later than ten (10) days prior to the deadline for conducting the discovery conference, so as to facilitate completion of the conference by the deadline. [Note 9.] Board participation is encouraged where pro se litigants are involved. [Note 10.] The participating attorney or judge has discretion to expand or reduce the number or nature of subjects to be discussed during the conference. [Note 11.] For instance, the Board professional may ascertain whether the parties have previously engaged in settlement discussions, explain to the parties the Board’s ACR option, and may inquire whether the parties need additional time after the conference to discuss settlement. [Note 12.] Participation by a Board professional will be by telephone. [Note 13.] The conference will not be recorded by the Board and shall not be recorded by the parties.


If a party desires the appearance of more than one counsel on behalf of a party in a discovery conference with Board participation, that party is to designate a lead counsel to represent the party in the conference. With respect to pro se parties, the person who appears on behalf of the party, is one authorized under 37 CFR § 11.14(e). See TBMP § 114 (Party May Represent Itself). If a pro se litigant desires to have counsel appear on its behalf strictly for purposes of the discovery conference with Board participation, such counsel shall file a notice of appearance prior to the conduct of the discovery conference for this limited purpose. Subsequently, counsel will file a notice of withdrawal, unless counsel has been retained by the party to take further action on behalf of the party in the case. See TBMP § 116.01 regarding termination of representation.


In discovery conferences with Board participation, parties must conduct themselves with appropriate decorum and interruptions are to be avoided. The Board professional participating in the conference generally will signal that a party may make presentation by inviting the party to do so or by inviting a response to a presentation made by another. The Board professional may make other requirements for the orderly conduct of the discovery conference.


If neither party requests Board participation in the discovery conference, the parties still must conference no later than the prescribed deadline, and the Board will operate on the assumption that the conference was held by the deadline. The mere discussion of settlement amongst the parties does not substitute for a full discovery conference of subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and the Board’s institution order. [Note 14.]


Unlike the Federal Rules, the parties do not have to file a disclosure/discovery plan with the Board following their discovery conference, unless they are seeking leave by motion or stipulation to alter standard deadlines or obligations, or unless they were directed to do so by the Board. [Note 15.]


The Board has the authority to order parties to hold a discovery conference, either sua sponte or upon motion. [Note 16.]


For a discussion regarding the duty to cooperate in scheduling and conducting a discovery conference, and the imposition of sanctions for the failure to participate in a discovery conference, see TBMP § 408.01(a).


For general information on the conduct of telephone conferences, participation in telephone conferences, and issuance of rulings resulting from telephone conferences, see TBMP § 502.06(a).


NOTES:


1. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 and 42252 (August 1, 2007); 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(1); 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). See, e.g., Promgirl, Inc. v. JPC Co., 94USPQ2d 1759, 1761-62 (TTAB 2009) (mere discussion of settlement does not substitute for full discovery conference of subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and Board’s institution order).


2. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 and 42252 (August 1, 2007). See Weatherford/Lamb Inc. v. C&J Energy Servs., Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1834, 1836 n.4 (TTAB 2010) (parties encouraged to discuss ACR during discovery conference).


3. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007).


4. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007).


5. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007).


6. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007).


7. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007). See Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Chaveriat, 87 USPQ2d 1767, 1767 n.1 (TTAB 2008) (“The Board is unlikely to find good cause when such a request is based on the parties’ desire to engage in settlement discussions.”).


8. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007).


9. See 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(2); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007). But see Promgirl, Inc. v. JPC Co., 94 USPQ2d 1759, 1762 (TTAB 2009) (Board professional can participate in discovery conference with less than ten days notice in instances where parties are at an impasse; conference may take place after deadline in those circumstances).


10. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42252 (August 1, 2007) (“... Board professionals involved in conferences will fill the educator’s role [that] would have to be filled by experienced counsel.”).


11. 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(2).


12. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42252 (August 1, 2007).


13. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007).


14. Promgirl, Inc. v. JPC Co., 94 USPQ2d 1759, 1761-62 (TTAB 2009).


15. 37 CFR §  2.120(a)(2); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245(August 1, 2007).


16. See, e.g., Promgirl, Inc. v. JPC Co., 94 USPQ2d 1759, 1763 (TTAB 2009).


TBMP 401.02    Initial Disclosures

37 CFR §  2.120(a)(2) . Initial disclosures must be made no later than thirty days after the opening of the discovery period..


37 CFR § 2.120(a)(3) . A party must make its initial disclosures prior to seeking discovery, absent modification of this requirement by a stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or a motion granted by the Board or by order of the Board...


Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures.


(A) In General. Except as exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or as otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties:

(i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information — along with the subjects of that information — that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;

(ii) a copy — or a description by category and location — of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment ...

Each party involved in an inter partes proceeding is obligated to make initial disclosures to every other party, by the deadline set in the Board’s institution order, or as may be reset by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or by motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. [Note 1.] A party may not seek discovery through traditional devices until after it has made its initial disclosures, absent modification of this requirement by a stipulation or motion of the parties approved by the Board, or upon Board order. [Note 2.] Generally, each party will meet this obligation by complying with the disclosure requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i) and (ii); subsections (iii) and (iv) of Rule 26(a)(1)(A) do not apply to Board proceedings. [Note 3.] “Initial disclosures are not intended to substitute for all discovery but, rather, to prompt routine disclosure of names of potential witnesses and basic information about documents and things that a party may use to support a claim or defense.” [Note 4.]


Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), a party is not obligated to disclose the name of every witness, document or thing that may have or contain discoverable information about its claim or defense, but merely the witnesses, documents and things having or containing discoverable “information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses.” [Note 5.] If, however, a party does identify a trial witness in its initial disclosures, the party must provide the subject matter(s) about which each identified witness is likely to have discoverable information, as well as any known addresses and/or phone numbers for the identified witness. [Note 6.] In addition, a party must either provide the location of all identified documents in its initial disclosures, or, in the alternative, produce them. [Note 7.]


Initial disclosures are not a substitute for taking comprehensive discovery. [Note 8.] Nonetheless, discovery in Board proceedings should be more limited in scope than in district court cases since Board jurisdiction is limited to determining a party’s right to obtain or retain a registration. [Note 9.] However, in the spirit of cooperation, parties can, subject to Board approval, stipulate to rely on more expansive use of reciprocal disclosures in lieu of formal discovery, as a more efficient and less costly means of litigating a Board proceeding. [Note 10.]


There is no concept of priority in regard to initial disclosures, and a party is not relieved of its obligation to make or supplement initial disclosures merely because it may not have received such disclosures or supplementation from an adverse party or parties. [Note 11.] For information regarding the duty to supplement initial disclosures, see TBMP § 408.03.


A party making initial disclosures has the option of disclosing information about the existence and location of documents instead of producing copies of documents. [Note 12.] However, the Board encourages parties to actually exchange copies of disclosed documents rather than to merely identify their location. [Note 13.]


Initial written disclosures and initial disclosures of documents are treated like responses to discovery requests insofar as they may be used in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment and may, at trial, be introduced by notice of reliance. [Note 14.] For more information on motions for summary judgment and introduction of disclosures at trial by notice of reliance, see TBMP § 528 and TBMP § 704.14.


Pertinent information under Fed. R. Civ. P.26(a)(1) stored in digital or electronic form must also be identified in initial disclosures. For further information regarding the discovery of electronically stored information, see TBMP § 402.02.


A party failing to make initial disclosures may be subject to a motion to compel, and ultimately, a motion for discovery sanctions. [Note 15.]


In addition, a party may not file a motion for summary judgment until the party has made its initial disclosures, except for a motion asserting claim or issue preclusion or lack of jurisdiction by the Board. [Note 16.]


For further information regarding the duty to cooperate and remedies for failure to make initial disclosures, see TBMP § 408.01(b) and TBMP § 411.01.


NOTES:


1. 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(1), 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(2)  and 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(3).


2. 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(3). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Wax,93 USPQ2d 1702, 1704-06 (TTAB 2009) (party objecting to discovery due to proponent’s alleged failure to make initial disclosures must specifically articulate that objection); Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Chaveriat, 87 USPQ2d 1767, 1768 (TTAB 2008) (parties’ notice of waiver of initial disclosures approved).


3. See 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(1). See also MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246(August 1, 2007); Influance Inc. v. Zuker, 88 USPQ2d 1859, 1861 (TTAB 2008) (initial disclosures must be signed by party or party’s attorney to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)).


4. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007).


5. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007). See Great Seats Inc. v. Great Seats Ltd., 100 USPQ2d 1323, 1326 (TTAB 2011) (because an exhaustive search for all information or potential witnesses is not required, Board did not exclude the testimony of certain witnesses named for the first time in pretrial disclosures based on the failure to name them in initial disclosures, though the testimony for most witnesses was excluded for other reasons); Jules Jurgensen/Rhapsody Inc. v. Baumberger, 91 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 n.1 (TTAB 2009) (“A party need not, through its mandatory initial disclosures, identify particular individuals as prospective trial witnesses, per se, but must identify ‘each individual likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses.’ . . . Individuals identified through initial disclosures therefore could reasonably be viewed as possible witnesses.”)...But see Byer California v. Clothing for Modern Times Ltd., 95 USPQ2d 1175, 1179 (TTAB 2010) (where opposer identifies trial witness in pretrial disclosures who was not identified in initial disclosures, opposer ordered to serve revised pretrial disclosure limiting testimony witness to subjects on which second trial witness that was identified in initial disclosures is expected to testify).


6. Influance Inc. v. Zuker, 88 USPQ2d 1859, 1861 (TTAB 2008).


7. Influance Inc. v. Zuker, 88 USPQ2d 1859, 1861 (TTAB 2008).


8. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007).


9. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245-46 (August 1, 2007).


10. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007).


11. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(E).


12. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42254 (August 1, 2007).


13. Influance Inc. v. Zuker, 88 USPQ2d 1859, 1861 n.4 (TTAB 2008).


14. 37 CFR § 2.127(e)(2)  and 37 CFR §  2.120 (j)(3)(i). See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007).


15. 37 CFR § 2.120(e); 37 CFR § 2.120(g)(1); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42256 (August 1, 2007). See also Luster Products Inc. v. Van Zandt, 104 USPQ2d 1877, 1878-79 (TTAB 2012) (motion to compel is available remedy for failure to serve, or insufficient, initial disclosures).


16. 37 CFR § 2.127(e)(1). See, e.g., Qualcomm, Inc. v. FLO Corp., 93USPQ2d 1768, 1769-70 (TTAB 2010) (motion for summary judgment denied as premature where movant had yet to serve initial disclosures).


TBMP 401.03    Expert Disclosures

37 CFR § 2.120(a)(2)  ... Disclosure of expert testimony must occur in the manner and sequence provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), unless alternate directions have been provided by the Board in an institution order or any subsequent order resetting disclosure, discovery or trial dates. If the expert is retained after the deadline for disclosure of expert testimony, the party must promptly file a motion for leave to use expert testimony. Upon disclosure by any party of plans to use expert testimony, whether before or after the deadline for disclosing expert testimony, the Board may issue an order regarding expert discovery and /or set a deadline for any other party to disclose plans to use a rebuttal expert…


Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony.


(A) In General . In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705.

(B) Witnesses Who Must Provide a Written Report . Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this disclosure must be accompanied by a written report — prepared and signed by the witness — if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the party’s employee regularly involve giving expert testimony. The report must contain:

(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them;

(ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them;

(iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them;

(iv) the witness’s qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years;

(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and

(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.

(C) Witnesses Who Do Not Provide a Written Report . Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, if the witness is not required to provide a written report, this disclosure must state:

(i) the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705; and

(ii) a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify.

(D) Time to Disclose Expert Testimony . A party must make these disclosures at the times and in the sequence that the court orders. Absent a stipulation or a court order, the disclosures must be made:

(i) at least 90 days before the date set for trial or for the case to be ready for trial; or

(ii) if the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) or (C), within 30 days after the other party’s disclosure.

(E) Supplementing the Disclosure . The parties must supplement these disclosures when required under Rule 26(e).

Although not frequently utilized in Board proceedings, experts in Board inter partes proceedings are typically recruited on the basis of experience in the relevant trade or industry and not on the basis of personal knowledge of or on-the-scene involvement in any sequence of events that gave rise to the Board proceedings. [Note 1.] As set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, made applicable to Board proceedings by 37 CFR § 2.122, “a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” [Note 2.] A party generally must decide within the discovery period whether it plans to use an expert to testify at trial since expert disclosure is due 30 days prior to the close of discovery, or by any deadline that may be reset by any order of the Board issued after the initial institution order. [Note 3.]


The extent of the expert disclosure obligation is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, specifically, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2). [Note 4.] Parties are not required to disclose consulting experts. [Note 5.] On the other hand, both retained, specially employed experts, and unretained experts must be disclosed. [Note 6.] Only retained experts are required to provide a report, unless otherwise stipulated. [Note 7.] For unretained experts, a party must provide the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703, or 705; and a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify. [Note 8.]


The disclosure of planned or possible expert testimony by any party must be made by the expert disclosure deadline, regardless of whether any other party has made such disclosure. Thus, for example, if a defendant has plans to present, or may present, expert testimony to support an affirmative defense, regardless of whether a plaintiff may use expert testimony in support of a main claim, then the defendant must disclose the planned or possible presentation of such testimony by the deadline set by the Board. [Note 9.] If a party decides after the deadline for expert disclosure that it would like to, or may need to, rely on expert testimony at trial, the party must file a motion for leave to use the expert at trial. [Note 10.] The provisions regarding the timing of expert disclosure are intended to facilitate the taking of any necessary discovery by any party or parties adverse to the disclosing party, in regard to the proposed expert witness, and to allow the adverse party or parties to determine whether it will be necessary to rely on a rebutting expert. Parties are expected to cooperate in the process of exchanging information about any testifying experts, and should at least discuss, during the discovery conference, the possibility of entering into stipulations that will facilitate the exchange of such information and/or the presentation of expert testimony. The parties should revisit these discussions whenever it appears that a testifying expert witness may become involved in the case. [Note 11.]


Any party disclosing plans to use an expert must notify the Board that it has made the required disclosure(but should not file with the Board copies of the materials provided to adverse parties) to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2). [Note12.] The Board may then suspend proceedings to allow for discovery limited to experts. [Note 13.] The suspension order may leave unchanged the deadline specified in the Federal Rule for disclosure of plans to use a rebuttal expert, or may reset the deadline, depending upon the circumstances at the time the Board issues the suspension order. Suspension is as to activities unrelated to the exchange of information about, and reports by, expected expert witnesses, and the parties should continue with the expert disclosure procedures specified in the Federal Rule pending issuance of any suspension order by the Board that will specify any actions of the parties required by the Board. If a party discloses plans to use an expert witness early in the discovery period, the Board may choose not to suspend discovery activities unrelated to the expected expert witnesses and may direct that all discovery activities continue concurrently with the disclosures and discovery relative to the experts. [Note 14.] The Board recognizes that there may be cases in which a party may not decide that it needs to present an expert witness at trial until after the deadline for expert disclosure. In such cases, disclosure must be made promptly when the expert is retained and a motion for leave to present testimony by the expert must be filed. [Note 15.] Prompt disclosure after the deadline, however, does not necessarily ensure that the expert’s testimony or evidence will be allowed into the record at trial. [Note 16.] The Board will decide on a case-by-case basis how to handle a party’s late identification of experts. [Note 17.]


A party has the prerogative of deciding not to use a designated expert for testimony. [Note 18.] In addition, a party may be permitted to withdraw a previously disclosed expert and expert report and substitute a new expert witness and expert report. [Note 19.] However, if the substitution occurs after the expert disclosure deadline, the Board will consider whether the substitution is substantially justified or harmless. [Note 20.] A party may redesignate a testifying expert witness as a non-testifying or consulting expert. [Note 21.] If a party redesignates the designated testifying expert witness as a non-testifying or consulting expert after an expert report has been disclosed, the expert will be subject to deposition only under exceptional circumstances. [Note 22.] If a party discloses an expert report after the expert disclosure deadline, the Board will consider whether the late disclosure is substantially justified or harmless. [Note 23.]


A party may supplement or correct its expert disclosures “if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.” [Note 24.] A party may supplement or correct information included in an expert report and information given in the expert’s deposition testimony before a party's pretrial disclosures are due. [Note 25.]


For further information regarding the duty to cooperate and to the duty to supplement with regard to expert disclosures, see TBMP § 408.01(b) and TBMP § 408.03. For information regarding remedies for failure to disclose or inadequate expert disclosures, see TBMP § 411.01.


NOTES:


1. RTX Scientific Inc. v. Nu-Calgon Wholesaler Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1492, 1494-95 (TTAB 2013).


2. Fed. R. Evid. 702. See also Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules. See, e.g., McDonald’s Corp. v. McSweet, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1268, 1298 n.58 (TTAB 2014) (“While a party is not required to employ an expert to be able to direct criticisms to an opposing party's survey, having a qualified expert confirm that the criticisms reflect the relevant standards employed in the survey field would lend additional weight to such criticisms.”); Alcatraz Media, Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1757 (TTAB 2013) (witness qualified as an expert in the field of travel writing and journalism based on professional experience as a travel writer and editor), aff’d, 565 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (mem.).


3. See 37 CFR § 2.120(a). See also MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007) (in the absence of an order from the Board setting a deadline, expert disclosures are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), per 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(2)); General Council of the Assemblies of God v. Heritage Music Foundation, 97 USPQ2d 1890, 1893 (TTAB 2011) (party is to disclose its plan to use an expert 30 days before the close of discovery).


4. See RTX Scientific Inc. v. Nu-Calgon Wholesaler Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1492, 1494 (TTAB 2013) (use of testifying expert); General Council of the Assemblies of God v. Heritage Music Foundation, 97 USPQ2d 1890, 1891-92 (TTAB 2011).


5. See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42254 (August 1, 2007). See also Fed. R. Civ. P 26(b)(4)(D); Ate My Heart, Inc. v. GA GA Jeans Ltd., 111 USPQ2d 1564, 1567 (TTAB 2014) (discussing the differences between testifying and consulting experts in connection with redesignation of a testifying expert as a consulting expert).


6. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A).


7. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C). See RTX Scientific Inc. v. Nu-Calgon Wholesaler Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1492, 1495 (TTAB 2013) (an expert is retained for purposes of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and required to provide a written report “[w]here an expert’s opinion testimony arises from his enlistment as an expert and not from an on-the-scene involvement in any incidents giving rise to the litigation”).


8. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C). A witness under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) may testify as both a fact witness and also provide expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703 or 705. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) Advisory committee notes (2010 amendment).


9. See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007).


10. See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007).


11. See General Council of the Assemblies of God v. Heritage Music Foundation, 97 USPQ2d 1890, 1893 n. 3 (TTAB 2011) (parties expected to cooperate to resolve problems arising from timely but incomplete expert disclosures).


12. See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007). RTX Scientific Inc. v. Nu-Calgon Wholesaler Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1492, 1493 n.3 (TTAB 2013) (a party must the notify the Board of its plan to use an expert (without including copies of expert disclosures), and that it has made required expert disclosures to adversary; the best practice is to notify the Board concurrently with the expert disclosures to adverse party). But see General Council of the Assemblies of God v. Heritage Music Foundation, 97 USPQ2d 1890, 1893 (TTAB 2011) (37 CFR § 2.120(a)(2)  does not mandate that a disclosing party inform the Board that an expert disclosure has been made; disclosing party’s failure to notify the Board is not a ground to exclude the testimony).


13. See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007); But see, General Council of the Assemblies of God v. Heritage Music Foundation, 97 USPQ2d 1890, 1893 (TTAB 2011) (“The purpose of informing the Board of such a disclosure is to facilitate discovery,” but notification to the Board may not be necessary if expert-related discovery can be concluded by the close of discovery).


14. See General Council of the Assemblies of God v. Heritage Music Foundation, 97 USPQ2d 1890, 1893 (TTAB 2011) (in any given case, suspension of proceedings for expert-related discovery may not be necessary).


15. See 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(2).


16. See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007).


17. See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007). See, e.g., Entravision Communications Corp. v. Liberman Television LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1526, 1528-29 (TTAB 2015) (after balancing relevant factors, substitution of witness and expert report after expert disclosure deadline due to witness unavailability found to be substantially justified and harmless under circumstances of the case); Gemological Institute of America, Inc. v. Gemology Headquarters International, LLC, 111 USPQ2d 1559, 1563-64 (TTAB 2014) (after balancing relevant factors, untimely disclosure of expert opinion found neither substantially justified nor harmless under circumstances of case).


18. Ate My Heart, Inc. v. GA GA Jeans Ltd., 111 USPQ2d 1564, 1567 (TTAB 2014).


19. Entravision Communications Corp. v. Liberman Television LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1526, 1528-29 (TTAB 2015).


20. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). See, e.g., Entravision Communications Corp. v. Liberman Television LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1526, 1528 (TTAB 2015) (substitution of expert and expert report after expert disclosure deadline).


21. Ate My Heart, Inc. v. GA GA Jeans Ltd., 111 USPQ2d 1564, 1567, 1567 n.9 (TTAB 2014) (noting that a designated expert witness can be redesignated as a non-testifying or consulting expert and shielded from discovery).


22. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(D)(ii); Ate My Heart, Inc. v. GA GA Jeans Ltd., 111 USPQ2d 1564, 1568 (TTAB 2014) (showing of exceptional circumstances required in case of noticed deposition (without subpoena) of party’s redesignated consulting expert). Please note: The Board has no jurisdiction over depositions of non-parties by subpoena.


23. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). See, e.g., Entravision Communications Corp. v. Liberman Television LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1526, 1528 (TTAB 2015) (substitution of expert and expert report); Gemological Institute of America, Inc. v. Gemology Headquarters Int’l, LLC, 111 USPQ2d 1559, 1562 (TTAB 2014) (untimely expert report).


24. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A). Gemological Institute of America, Inc. v. Gemology Headquarters International, LLC, 111 USPQ2d 1559, 1561-62 (TTAB 2014) (discussing what is proper supplementation of an expert report).


25. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(2). Entravision Communications Corp. v. Liberman Television LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1526, 1528 n.5 (TTAB 2015); Gemological Institute of America, Inc. v. Gemology Headquarters International, LLC, 111 USPQ2d 1559, 1562 (TTAB 2014).


TBMP 401.04    Modification of Disclosure Obligations

37 CFR § 2.120(a)(2)  ... Disclosure deadlines and obligations may be modified upon written stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. If a stipulation or motion for modification is denied, disclosure deadlines and obligations may remain as originally set or reset and obligations may remain unaltered. ...


Disclosure deadlines and obligations may be modified upon written stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. [Note 1.] Written initial disclosures or disclosed documents, and materials obtained through the disclosure process should not be filed with the Board, except when submitted with a motion relating to disclosure or discovery, or in support of or in response to a motion for summary judgment, or under a notice of reliance, when permitted, during a party’s testimony period. [Note 2.] The parties may agree to waive or otherwise modify their obligation to make disclosures, but must inform the Board by written stipulation or by motion. [Note 3.] A party who fails to make the required or adequate disclosures may be subject to a motion to compel, and ultimately a motion for sanctions, including possible judgment. [Note 4.] See TBMP § 411.01 and TBMP § 523 for further information on motions to compel initial or expert disclosures.


In instances where the defendant is in default, or a pleading motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or counterclaim has been filed, the parties’ obligation to make initial disclosures is effectively stayed. [Note 5.] In such cases, the Board will reset the deadline for making initial disclosures as well as the deadline for the discovery conference and all subsequent dates, after resolving or accounting for the default, motion or counterclaim. [Note 6.] For further information regarding the rescheduling of the discovery conference in these circumstances, see TBMP § 401.01.


Pretrial disclosures are not part of the disclosure and discovery process and, therefore, a motion to compel is not the remedy when a party fails to make, or makes inadequate, pretrial disclosures. See TBMP § 702.01 for further information on pretrial disclosures.


For a discussion regarding extensions of time to make disclosures and the impact of extensions of time regarding the close of discovery on disclosure obligations, see TBMP § 403.04.


NOTES:


1. 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(2).


2. 37 CFR § 2.120(j)(8). See also Joel Gott Wines LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1427 n.6 (TTAB 2013) (documents obtained through disclosure may be offered as exhibits in connection with the taking of an adversary’s discovery deposition, and may be introduced as exhibits during the taking of an adversary’s testimony).


3. 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(2)  and 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(3). See, e.g., Sheetz of Delaware, Inc. v. Doctor’s Associates Inc., 108 USPQ2d 1341, 1344 (TTAB 2013) (parties stipulated to waive pretrial disclosures); Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Chaveriat, 87 USPQ2d 1767, 1767-68 (TTAB 2008) (waiver of initial disclosures).


4. 37 CFR § 2.120(e)(1); 37 CFR § 2.120(g)(1)  and 37 CFR § 2.120(g)(2); RTX Scientific Inc. v. Nu-Calgon Wholesaler Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1492, 1493 (TTAB 2013) (motion to compel is an available remedy for inadequate expert disclosures); Promgirl, Inc. v. JPC Co., 94 USPQ2d 1759, 1760 n.2 (TTAB 2009) (motion to compel is remedy when adversary has failed to make or has made inadequate initial disclosures); Influance Inc. v. Zuker, 88 USPQ2d 1859, 1861 (TTAB 2008) (petitioner’s motion to compel amended initial disclosures granted where respondent failed to identify the address or telephone number of listed witnesses, the subject matter(s) about which each has information, and the location or production of identified documents).


5. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007).


6. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007).


TBMP 401.05    Form of Disclosures

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(4) Form of Disclosures. Unless the court orders otherwise, all disclosures under Rule 26(a) must be in writing, signed, and served.


Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) Signing Disclosures and Discovery Requests, Responses, and Objections.


Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)


(1) Signature Required; Effect of Signature. Every disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1) or (a)(3) and every discovery request, response, or objection must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s own name — or by the party personally, if unrepresented — and must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and telephone number. By signing, an attorney or party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry:

(A) with respect to a disclosure, it is complete and correct as of the time it is made ...

(2) Failure to Sign. Other parties have no duty to act on an unsigned disclosure, request, response, or objection until it is signed, and the court must strike it unless a signature is promptly supplied after the omission is called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.

Disclosures must be in writing, signed by either the party or its attorney, and bear the caption and proceeding number for the case. [Note 1.] The signer’s address, email address and telephone number must also be provided. [Note 2.] Signature of a disclosure constitutes certification that the disclosure is complete and correct at the time it was made. [Note 3.] Disclosures also must be served. [Note 4.]


Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 specifically exempts privileged information and work product from disclosure.


For a discussion of the duty to supplement initial disclosures, see TBMP § 408.03.


For a discussion of violations of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g), see TBMP § 408.01(c).


NOTES:


1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(4); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g). See Influance Inc. v. Zuker, 88 USPQ2d 1859, 1861 (TTAB 2008).


2. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1).


3. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(A).


4. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(4).


401.06    Other Requirements Under the Board’s Disclosure Regime

As noted above, parties are also required to hold a discovery conference discussing the subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) as well as the nature and basis of the involved claims and defenses, the possibility of settlement of the case or modification of the pleadings, and plans for disclosures and discovery and any other subjects that the Board may, in an institution order, require to be discussed. [Note 1.] The parties are free to discuss additional topics besides those outlined in the institution order that could promote settlement or efficient adjudication of the Board proceeding. [Note 2.] Because the parties may enter into stipulations altering disclosure obligations, they should continue to discuss their reciprocal obligations, and progress made in satisfying such obligations, even after the discovery conference has been held.


A party that has not made initial disclosures may not serve discovery requests or file a motion for summary judgment, except for a motion addressing the Board’s jurisdiction or claim or issue preclusion. [Note 3.] Under these circumstances, the requirement of service of initial disclosures cannot be waived. [Note 4.] For a further discussion regarding the timing of filing a motion for summary judgment, see TBMP § 528.02. A party that has not made initial disclosures is also precluded from filing a motion to compel. [Note 5.]


Parties are also required to make pretrial disclosures prior to the opening of each testimony period. For further information on pretrial disclosures, see TBMP § 702.01.


The Board expects parties (and their attorneys or other authorized representatives) to cooperate with one another in the disclosure and discovery process, and looks with extreme disfavor on those who do not. For further guidance regarding the parties’ duty to cooperate, see TBMP § 408.01.


For a discussion of the duty to supplement written discovery responses and disclosures, see TBMP § 408.03.


NOTES:


1. See 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007); Promgirl, Inc. v. JPC Co., 94 USPQ2d 1759, 1761 (TTAB 2009).


2. See, e.g., Promgirl, Inc. v. JPC Co., 94 USPQ2d 1759, 1761(TTAB 2009).


3. 37 CFR § 2.127(e)(1). See e.g., Qualcomm, Inc. v. FLO Corp., 93 USPQ2d 1768, 1769-70 (TTAB 2010) (motion for summary judgment denied as premature where movant had not yet made and served initial disclosures). See also Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Precision Formulations LLC, 89 USPQ2d 1251, 1255-56 (TTAB 2009) (“Because the Board does not allow a party to file a motion for summary judgment prior to the moving party’s service of initial disclosures on the adverse party, the Board generally will no longer exercise its discretion to convert motions to dismiss that refer to matters outside the pleadings into motions for summary judgment, if such motions are filed before the moving party serves its initial disclosures.”).


4. Qualcomm, Inc. v. FLO Corp., 93 USPQ2d 1768, 1769-70 (TTAB 2010). But see Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Chaveriat, 87 USPQ2d 1767, 1767-68 (TTAB 2008) (Board approved parties’ stipulation to waive their reciprocal obligation to make initial disclosures).


5. 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(3)  (“a party must make its initial disclosures prior to seeking discovery”). See Dating DNA, LLC v. Imagini Holdings, LLC, 94 USPQ2d 1889, 1893 (TTAB 2010) (motion to compel denied where moving party failed to make initial disclosures).

Not Just Patents® LLC

PO Box 18716, Minneapolis, MN 55418  

1-651-500-7590    

WP@NJP.legal


Aim Higher®

Facts Matter

Search Not Just Patents® sites:


PetitionToCancel.com

Tie It Up

Securing the Right IP

Call 1-651-500-7590 or email WP@NJP.legal for Responses to Office Actions; File or Defend an Opposition or Cancellation; Trademark Searches and Applications; Send or Respond to Cease and Desist Letters.

For more information from Not Just Patents, see our other sites:      

Steps to a Patent    How to Patent An Invention

Should I Get A Trademark or Patent?

Trademark e Search    Strong Trademark     Enforcing Trade Names

Common Law Trademarks  Trademark Goodwill   Abandoned Trademarks

Patentability Evaluation

Chart of Patent vs. Trade Secret

Patent or Trademark Assignments

Trademark Disclaimers   Trademark Dilution     TSDR Status Descriptors

Oppose or Cancel? Examples of Disclaimers  Business Name Cease and Desist

Sample Patent, Trademark & Copyright Inventory Forms

Verify a Trademark  Be First To File    How to Trademark Search

Are You a Content Provider-How to Pick an ID  Specimens: webpages

How to Keep A Trade Secret

State & Federal Trade Secret Laws

Using Slogans (Taglines), Model Numbers as Trademarks

Which format? When Should I  Use Standard Characters?

Shop Rights  What is a Small or Micro Entity?

Patent Drawings

Opposition Pleadings    UDRP Elements    

Oppositions-The Underdog    Misc Changes to TTAB Rules 2017

How To Answer A Trademark Cease and Desist Letter

Converting Provisional to Nonprovisional Patent Application (or claiming benefit of)

Trademark Refusals    Does not Function as a Mark Refusals

How to Respond to Office Actions

What is a Compact Patent Prosecution?

Acceptable Specimen       Supplemental Register   $224 Statement of Use

How To Show Acquired Distinctiveness Under 2(f)

Patent search-New invention

Patent Search-Non-Obvious

Trademark Attorney for Overcoming Office Actions Functional Trademarks   How to Trademark     

What Does ‘Use in Commerce’ Mean?    

Grounds for Opposition & Cancellation     Cease and Desist Letter

Trademark Incontestability  TTAB Manual (TBMP)

Valid/Invalid Use of Trademarks     Trademark Searching

TTAB/TBMP Discovery Conferences & Stipulations

TBMP 113 Service of TTAB Documents  TBMP 309 Standing

Examples and General Rules for Likelihood of Confusion

USPTO Search Method for Likelihood of Confusion

Examples of Refusals for Likelihood of Confusion   DuPont Factors

What are Dead or Abandoned Trademarks?

 Can I Use An Abandoned Trademark?

Color as Trade Dress  3D Marks as Trade Dress  

Can I Abandon a Trademark During An Opposition?

Differences between TEAS and TEAS plus  

How do I Know If Someone Has Filed for An Extension of Time to Oppose?

Ornamental Refusal  Standard TTAB Protective Order

SCAM Letters Surname Refusal


What Does Published for Opposition Mean?

What to Discuss in the Discovery Conference

Descriptive Trademarks Trademark2e.com  

Likelihood of Confusion 2d

Acquired Distinctiveness  2(f) or 2(f) in part

Merely Descriptive Trademarks  

Merely Descriptive Refusals

ID of Goods and Services see also Headings (list) of International Trademark Classes

Register a Trademark-Step by Step  

Protect Business Goodwill Extension of Time to Oppose

Geographically Descriptive or Deceptive

Change of Address with the TTAB using ESTTA

Likelihood of confusion-Circuit Court tests

Pseudo Marks    How to Reply to Cease and Desist Letter

Not Just Patents Often Represents the Underdog

 Overcome Merely Descriptive Refusal   Overcome Likelihood Confusion

Protecting Trademark Rights (Common Law)

Steps in a Trademark Opposition Process   

Section 2(d) Refusals   FilingforTrademark.com

Zombie Trademark  

What is the Difference between Principal & Supplemental Register?

Typical Brand Name Refusals  What is a Family of Marks? What If Someone Files An Opposition Against My Trademark?

How to Respond Office Actions  

DIY Overcoming Descriptive Refusals

Trademark Steps Trademark Registration Answers TESS  

Trademark Searching Using TESS  Trademark Search Tips

Trademark Clearance Search   DIY Trademark Strategies

Published for Opposition     What is Discoverable in a TTAB Proceeding?

Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses


©2008-2017 All Rights Reserved. Not Just Patents LLC, PO Box 18716, Minneapolis, MN 55418.

Call: 1-651-500-7590 or email: WP@NJP.legal. This site is for informational purposes only and is provided without warranties, express or implied, regarding the information's accuracy, timeliness, or completeness and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney/client relationship exists without a written contract between Not Just Patents LLC and its client. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Privacy Policy Contact Us