501.01 In General
Subject to the approval of the Board, parties may stipulate to a wide variety of matters. For example, parties may stipulate to extend or reopen times; that the total number of interrogatories which one party may serve upon another party in a proceeding may be reduced from or may exceed the limitation specified in 37 CFR § 2.120(d)(1); that the production of documents and things under the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 may be made in a specified place and/or manner [ Note 1.]; to protective agreements or provisions different from or in substitution for the Board’s standard protective order; to the facts in the case of any party [ Note 2.]; that the testimony of witnesses may be submitted in affidavit form [ Note 3.]; that a deposition may be taken at a particular place, or in a certain manner [ Note 4.]; that the proceeding shall be ended in a specified way; and to pretrial disposition on the merits or abbreviated trial on the merits by means of Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR). [ Note 5.] See TBMP § 403.04 (Extensions of Discovery Period, Time to Respond to Discovery Requests, and Disclosures), TBMP § 412.02 (Modification of Board’s Standard Protective Order Upon Stipulation), TBMP § 528.05(a)(2) (Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR)), and TBMP § 605.03 (Settlement Agreements), TBMP § 702.04 (Accelerated Case Resolution), TBMP § 702.04(e) (Utilizing Stipulations in Non-ACR cases), and TBMP § 705 (Stipulated Evidence and Accelerated Case Resolution).
NOTES:
2. 37 CFR § 2.123(b). See, e.g., Board of Regents, University of Texas System v. Southern Illinois Miners, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1182, 1186 (TTAB 2014) (stipulation to the admission and use of produced documents and waiver of objections based on authenticity or hearsay); Harry Winston, Inc. v. Bruce Winston Gem Corp., 111 USPQ2d 1419, 1426 (TTAB 2014) (stipulation to the authenticity of certain documents, retail prices of opposers’ goods, the fact that advertisements and news articles refer to opposers, and press clippings are representative of the media in which opposers advertise); Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1738 (TTAB 2014) (parties filed joint stipulation that all documents produced in response to a request for production of documents were deemed authentic business records and were admissible subject to any objections other than authenticity); Target Brands Inc. v. Hughes, 85 USPQ2d 1676, 1678 (TTAB 2007) (the parties stipulated to the entire record, including business records, public records, marketing materials, Internet materials, and 13 paragraphs of facts, while reserving the right to object to such facts and documents on the bases of relevance, materiality and weight).
3. 37 CFR § 2.123(b). See, e.g., Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1738 (TTAB 2014) (parties filed joint stipulation that testimony could be submitted by declaration or affidavit subject to cross-examination upon request); Harry Winston, Inc. v. Bruce Winston Gem Corp., 111 USPQ2d 1419, 1426 (TTAB 2014) (stipulation to submission of witness declarations and discovery depositions).
5. See, e.g., Fiserv, Inc. v. Electronic Transmission Systems Corp., 113 USPQ2d 1913, 116 (TTAB 2015) (parties filed ACR stipulation, agreed to forego discovery, waived disclosures, stipulated to facts and attached documents, filed briefs with additional evidence); Hunter Industries, Inc. v. Toro Co., 110 USPQ2d 1651, 1653 (TTAB 2014) (parties’ stipulation under ACR provided limitations on discovery, excluded the filing of motions for summary judgment and the use of expert testimony, streamlined the methods for introduction of evidence during trial, stipulated to fact regarding no actual confusion), on appeal, No. 14-CV-4463 (D. Minn.); Frito-Lay North America, Inc. v. Princeton Vanguard, LLC, 109 USPQ2d 1949, 1950 (TTAB 2014) (after suggestion by Board in order denying motion for summary judgment, parties stipulated to forego trial and rely on evidence submitted in support of the motions for summary judgment, supplemented by expert declarations, trial briefs and an oral hearing), on appeal, No. 14-1517 (Fed. Cir.); Chanel Inc. v. Makarczyk, 106 USPQ2d 1774, 1775-76 (TTAB 2013) (approving parties’ stipulation to proceed via ACR).