405.04(a) Time for Service of Responses
37 CFR § 2.120(a)(3) … Responses to interrogatories, requests for production of documents and things, and requests for admission must be served within thirty days from the date of service of such discovery requests.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2) Time to Respond. The responding party must serve its answers and any objections within 30 days after being served with the interrogatories. ...
Responses to interrogatories must be served within 30 days after the date of service of the interrogatories. TBMP § 403.03. If service of the interrogatories is made by first-class mail, Priority Mail Express®, or overnight courier, the date of mailing or of delivery to the overnight courier is considered to be the date of service, and five extra days are allowed for responding to the interrogatories. [ Note 1.] TBMP § 113.05 and TBMP § 403.03. In instances where the parties have agreed to electronic service, e.g. service by facsimile or email, no additional time is allowed for responding to the interrogatories. [ Note 2.] TBMP § 403.03.
A party which fails to respond to interrogatories during the time allowed therefor, and which is unable to show that its failure was the result of excusable neglect, may be found, on motion to compel filed by the propounding party, to have forfeited its right to object to the interrogatories on their merits. [ Note 3.] Objections going to the merits of an interrogatory or other discovery request include claims that the information sought by the request is irrelevant, overly broad, unduly vague and ambiguous, burdensome and oppressive, or not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. [ Note 4.] In contrast, objections based on claims of privilege or confidentiality or attorney work product do not go to the merits of the request, but instead to a characteristic of the information sought. [ Note 5.] Objections based on confidentiality are expected to be extremely limited because the Board’s standard protective order is in place for all Board inter partes proceedings. [ Note 6.]
NOTES:
2. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42250 (August 1, 2007) ("As for agreed use by parties of email or fax for forwarding of service copies, the Office confirms that § 2.119(c) would not apply to service by electronic transmission (email or fax) under § 2.119(b)(6).").
3. See No Fear Inc. v. Rule, 54 USPQ2d 1551, 1554 (TTAB 2000) (stating that the Board has great discretion in determining whether such forfeiture should be found); Envirotech Corp. v. Compagnie Des Lampes, 219 USPQ 448, 449 (TTAB 1979) (excusable neglect not shown where opposer was out of the country and, upon return, failed to ascertain that responses were due); Crane Co. v. Shimano Industrial Co., 184 USPQ 691, 691 (TTAB 1975) (waived right to object by refusing to respond to interrogatories, claiming that they served "no useful purpose"). See also Luehrmann v. Kwik Kopy Corp., 2 USPQ2d 1303, 1303 (TTAB 1987) (right to object not waived where although discovery responses were late, there was some confusion regarding time to respond); MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Arrow-M Corp., 203 USPQ 952, 953 (TTAB 1979) (although party failed to timely respond to discovery, party seeking such discovery is required to make good faith effort to determine why no response has been made before filing motion to compel).
4. See No Fear Inc. v. Rule, 54 USPQ2d 1551, 1554 (TTAB 2000).
5. See No Fear Inc. v. Rule, 54 USPQ2d 1551, 1554 (TTAB 2000) (party will generally not be found to have waived the right to make these objections).