504.01 Time for Filing
After the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party to an inter partes proceeding before the Board may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. [ Note 1.] In Board inter partes proceedings, the taking of testimony depositions during the assigned testimony periods corresponds to the trial in court proceedings, and the trial period commences with the opening of the first testimony period. [ Note 2.] Thus, to be timely, a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be filed after the pleadings are closed, but prior to the opening of the first testimony period, as originally set or as reset. [ Note 3.]
When a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is filed after the answer, but prior to trial, the Board may construe the motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. [ Note 4.] Cf. TBMP § 503.01 (Time for Filing Motion to Dismiss).
NOTES:
1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).
2. 37 CFR § 2.116(e); Von Schorlemer v. Baron Herm. Schorlemer Weinkellerei GmbH, 5 USPQ2d 1376, 1377 (TTAB 1986) (the opening of the plaintiff’s testimony period marks the beginning of the trial period); La Maur, Inc. v. Bagwells Enterprises, Inc., 193 USPQ 234, 235 (Comm’r 1976) (the testimony periods assigned by the Board correspond to a trial in a court proceeding).
3. Cf. 37 CFR § 2.127(e)(1) ;Von Schorlemer v. Baron Herm. Schorlemer Weinkellerei GmbH, 5 USPQ2d 1376, 1377 (TTAB 1986) (summary judgment must be filed prior to the opening of plaintiff’s testimony period); Lukens Inc. v. Vesper Corp., 1 USPQ2d 1299, 1300 n.2 (TTAB 1986), aff’d, 831 F.2d 306 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Rainbow Carpet, Inc. v. Rainbow International Carpet Dyeing & Cleaning Co., 226 USPQ 718, 718 (TTAB 1985); Buffett v. Chi Chi’s, Inc., 226 USPQ 428, 428 n.2 (TTAB 1985); La Maur, Inc. v. Bagwells Enterprises, Inc., 193 USPQ 234, 235 (Comm’r 1976) (summary judgment must not delay trial); Peterson’s Ltd. v. Consolidated Cigar Corp., 183 USPQ 559, 560 (TTAB 1974); Curtice-Burns, Inc. v. Northwest Sanitation Products, Inc., 182 USPQ 572, 572-73 (Comm’r 1974).
4. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(2)(B); Internet Inc. v. Corporation for National Research Initiatives, 38 USPQ2d 1435, 1438 (TTAB 1996); DAK Industries Inc. v. Daiichi Kosho Co., 35 USPQ2d 1434, 1436 (TTAB 1995); Western Worldwide Enterprises Group Inc. v. Qinqdao Brewery, 17 USPQ2d 1137, 1139 (TTAB 1990) (since motion based on defense that petition fails to state claim, standard for adjudicating motion for judgment on pleading is same as Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)).