311.02(a) Admissions and Denials
The defendant should not argue the merits of the allegations in a complaint but rather should state, as to each of the allegations contained in the complaint, that the allegation is either admitted or denied. [ Note 1.] If the defendant does not have sufficient information to admit or deny an allegation, the defendant may so state, and this statement will have the effect of a denial as to that allegation. If the complaint consists of numbered paragraphs setting forth the basis of plaintiff’s claim of damage, the defendant’s admissions or denials should be made in numbered paragraphs corresponding to the numbered paragraphs in the complaint.
A denial of an allegation should fairly meet the substance of the allegation denied, and may take any of the forms described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b). [ Note 2.] An answer that fails to deny a portion of an allegation may be deemed admitted as to that portion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6). Thus, if a defendant intends in good faith to deny only a part or a qualification of an allegation, the defendant should admit so much of the allegation as is true and material and should deny only the remainder. If a defendant intends in good faith to controvert all of the allegations contained in a complaint, including the jurisdictional grounds, the defendant may do so by general denial, subject to the obligations set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (for a discussion of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 in relation to pleadings, see TBMP § 318). If a defendant does not intend in good faith to controvert all of the allegations contained in a complaint, the defendant may make its denials as specific denials of designated allegations or paragraphs, or may generally deny all the allegations except those designated allegations or paragraphs which are expressly admitted. [ Note 3.]
In the absence of a general denial of the allegations in a complaint, admissions or denials should be made in numbered paragraphs corresponding to the numbered paragraphs in the complaint.
NOTES:
1. See 37 CFR § 2.106(b)(1) and 37 CFR § 2.114(b)(1) ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Olympus Corp., 931 F.2d 1551, 18 USPQ2d 1710, 1713 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Turner Entertainment Co. v. Ken Nelson, 38 USPQ2d 1942, 1943 (TTAB 1996) (applicant’s answers were argumentative and nonresponsive and Board was ultimately forced to interpret the answer); National Football League v. Jasper Alliance Corp., 16 USPQ2d 1212, 1214 n.2 (TTAB 1990) (applicant’s answer was more in the nature of argument than answer); and Thrifty Corp. v. Bomax Enterprises, 228 USPQ 62, 63 (TTAB 1985).
2. See 37 CFR § 2.106(b)(1) and 37 CFR § 2.114(b)(1) . See also Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 190 (CCPA 1982) (regarding equivocal admissions or denials).
3. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(3) and 8(b)(4).