502.06(b) Pretrial Conferences
37 CFR § 2.120(i)(2) Whenever it appears to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that questions or issues arising during the interlocutory phase of an inter partes proceeding have become so complex that their resolution by correspondence or telephone conference is not practical and that resolution would be likely to be facilitated by a conference in person of the parties or their attorneys with an Administrative Trademark Judge or an Interlocutory Attorney of the Board, the Board may, upon its own initiative or upon motion made by one or both of the parties, request that the parties or their attorneys, under circumstances which will not result in undue hardship for any party, meet with the Board at its offices for a disclosure, discovery or pre-trial conference.
Because the pretrial conference procedure necessarily involves expense for the parties, it is rarely used by the Board. However, it may be advantageous in cases where numerous complex motions are pending, or where the Board has identified the case as being, or having the potential to be, overly contentious and/or involve creation of excessive records by the parties, or where attorneys or parties are unable to work out a resolution of any of their differences. [ Note 1.] The Board may order the parties and/or their attorneys to appear at its offices for such a conference. [ Note 2.]
For information concerning discovery conferences, see TBMP § 401.01 and TBMP § 408.01(a).
NOTES:
1. 37 CFR § 2.120(i)(2). See Blackhorse v. Pro-Football Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1633, 1634 (TTAB 2011), on appeal, No. 1:14-cv-01043 (E.D. Va.).
2. See General Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Industry SA, 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1592 n.5 (TTAB 2011) (the Board may exercise its authority to order a pretrial conference in person at the Board’s offices in Alexandria, VA), judgment set aside on other grounds, slip op. 91118482 (TTAB Jan. 22, 2014); Blackhorse v. Pro-Football Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1633, 1634 (TTAB 2011) (Board exercised its authority to require parties to attend a pretrial conference at the Board’s offices in Alexandria, VA) on appeal, No. 1:14-cv-01043 (E.D. Va.); Amazon Technologies Inc. v. Wax, 95 USPQ2d 1865, 1869 (TTAB 2010) ("under Trademark Rule 2.120(i)(2), where resolution of discovery or other interlocutory issues ‘would likely be facilitated by a conference in person of the parties or their attorneys,’ the Board may ‘request that the parties or their attorneys … meet with the Board at its offices’ for a conference. If the parties remain unwilling or unable to work together cooperatively and efficiently, the Board will not hesitate to invoke this Rule in the future.").