507.02(a) Timing of Motion to Amend Pleading – In General
The timing of a motion for leave to amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) plays a large role in the Board’s determination of whether the adverse party would be prejudiced by allowance of the proposed amendment. [ Note 1.] A long and unexplained delay in filing a motion to amend a pleading (when there is no question of newly discovered evidence) may render the amendment untimely. [ Note 2.]
In order to avoid any prejudice to the adverse party when a motion for leave to amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) is granted, the Board may, in its discretion, reopen the discovery period to allow the adverse party to take discovery on the matters raised in the amended pleading. [ Note 3.] Exercise of such discretion to reopen discovery, however, may not be necessary when the proposed additional claim or allegation concerns a subject on which the nonmoving party can be expected to have relevant information in hand. This is especially true when the factual basis for the motion to amend was obtained by the moving party through discovery taken from the nonmoving party.
NOTES:
1. Ashland Licensing & Intellectual Prop. LLC v. Sunpoint International Group USA Corp., 119 USPQ2d 1125 (TTAB 2016) (motion to amend petition granted where delay in filing motion was due to multiple intervening suspensions and, when not actually suspended, reason to believe proceedings would be suspended); Prosper Business Development Corp. v. International Business Machines, Corp., 113 USPQ2d 1148, 1152 (TTAB 2014) (motion for leave to amend to file second amended notice of opposition granted where case was in pleading stage and nonmoving party could point to no specific prejudice in allowing the amendment); ChaCha Search Inc. v. Grape Technology Group Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1298, 1301 (TTAB 2012) (motion for leave to amend counterclaim denied on the bases of undue delay and prejudice to counterclaim defendant where brought after counterclaim plaintiff’s pretrial disclosures were served, months after summary judgment motions involving the counterclaim, and months after settlement discussions ceased); Media Online Inc. v. El Clasificado Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1285, 1286 (TTAB 2008) (motion for leave to amend to add claims of descriptiveness and fraud denied; petitioner unduly delayed in adding claims which were based on facts within petitioner’s knowledge at time petition to cancel was filed); Black & Decker Corp. v. Emerson Electric Co., 84 USPQ2d 1482, 1486 (TTAB 2007) (opposer unduly delayed in filing motion for leave to amend during testimony period); International Finance Corp. v. Bravo Co., 64 USPQ2d 1597, 1604 (TTAB 2002) (motion denied where although discovery still open, movant provided no explanation for two-year delay in seeking to add new claim); Trek Bicycle Corp. v. StyleTrek Ltd., 64 USPQ2d 1540, 1541 (TTAB 2001) (motion to amend opposition denied where it was filed eight months after filing of notice of opposition, with no explanation for the delay, and appeared to be based on facts within opposer’s knowledge at the time opposition was filed); Boral Ltd. v. FMC Corp., 59 USPQ2d 1701, 1703-04 (TTAB 2000) (no undue delay because motion to add claim of dilution was promptly filed after such claim became available, albeit over two years after commencement of proceeding); Penguin Books Ltd. v. Eberhard, 48 USPQ2d 1280, 1286-87 (TTAB 1998) (request raised for the first time in reply brief on counterclaim to further restrict pleaded registration denied since opposer had no notice of this issue); Capital Speakers Inc. v. Capital Speakers Club of Washington D.C., Inc., 41 USPQ2d 1030, 1033 (TTAB 1996) (motion to add claim of fraud denied where petitioner was fully aware of all the facts it needed to add such claim over three years before filing motion to amend); Metromedia Steakhouses Inc. v. Pondco II Inc., 28 USPQ2d 1205, 1206-07 (TTAB 1993) (motion filed after close of discovery to assert claim of res judicata based on a judgment entered in another case after the filing of opposition permitted since applicant was afforded adequate notice and no further discovery would be necessary); Commodore Electronics Ltd. v. CBM Kabushiki Kaisha, 26 USPQ2d 1503, 1505-06 (TTAB 1993) (no undue delay in view of pending motion for summary judgment and discovery was still open when motion was filed); United States Olympic Committee v. O-M Bread Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1221, 1222 (TTAB 1993) (proceeding still in pretrial stage and discovery had been extended); Focus 21 International Inc. v. Pola Kasei Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha, 22 USPQ2d 1316, 1318 (TTAB 1992) (motion to amend filed prior to opening of petitioner’s testimony period permitted); Space Base Inc. v. Stadis Corp., 17 USPQ2d 1216, 1217 n.1 (TTAB 1990) (opposer’s motion to amend its pleading during its testimony period granted in the interests of justice and judicial economy and since any prejudice could be mitigated by reopening discovery solely for applicant); Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Field’s Cookies, 11 USPQ2d 1355, 1359 (TTAB 1989) ("concept of ‘undue delay’ is inextricably linked with the concept of prejudice to the nonmoving party"); Microsoft Corp. v. Qantel Business Systems Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1732, 1733-34 (TTAB 1990) (proceeding still in the discovery stage and no undue prejudice shown).
2. Media Online Inc. v. El Clasificado Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1285, 1286 (TTAB 2008) (motion for leave to amend to add claims of descriptiveness and fraud denied; petitioner unduly delayed in adding claims which were based on facts within petitioner’s knowledge at time petition to cancel was filed); Black & Decker Corp. v. Emerson Electric Co., 84 USPQ2d 1482, 1486 (TTAB 2007) (opposer unduly delayed in filing motion for leave to amend during testimony period); Karsten Manufacturing Corp. v. Editoy AG, 79 USPQ2d 1783, 1786 (TTAB 2006) (motion for leave to amend pleading granted because grounds for new claim was learned during discovery); International Finance Corp. v. Bravo Co., 64 USPQ2d 1597, 1604 (TTAB 2002) (motion denied where although discovery still open, movant provided no explanation for two-year delay in seeking to add new claim); M. Aron Corp. v. Remington Products, Inc., 222 USPQ 93, 96 (TTAB 1984) (plaintiff should plead any registrations it wishes to introduce as soon as possible after the omission, or newly issued registration, comes to plaintiff’s attention).
3. Black & Decker Corp. v. Emerson Electric Co., 84 USPQ2d 1482, 1486 (TTAB 2008) ("the only way the Board could avoid prejudice to applicant would be by reopening the trial phase of this proceeding so that applicant could submit evidence addressing this ground [whether applicant had a bona fide intent to use its mark]"); Boral Ltd. v. FMC Corp., 59 USPQ2d 1701, 1703-04 (TTAB 2000) (reopened for limited purpose of conducting discovery on new claim); Space Base Inc. v. Stadis Corp., 17 USPQ2d 1216, 1217 n.1 (TTAB 1990) (reopened solely for applicant’s benefit); Buffett v. Chi Chi’s, Inc., 226 USPQ 428, 431 (TTAB 1985) (applicant to advise whether it would need additional discovery).