502.06(b)    Pretrial Conferences

37 C.F.R. § 2.120(j)(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 likely 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 direct that the parties and/or their attorneys meet with the Board for a disclosure, discovery or pretrial conference on such terms as the Board may order.

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 direct the parties and/or their attorneys to appear on such terms as the Board may order for such a conference. [ Note 2.]

For information concerning discovery conferences, see TBMP § 401.01 and TBMP § 408.01(a).

NOTES:

 1.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(j)(2). See Blackhorse v. Pro-Football Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1633, 1634 (TTAB 2011).

 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in person at the Board’s offices in Alexandria, VA), judgment set aside on other grounds, 110 USPQ2d 1679 (TTAB 2014) (non-precedential); Blackhorse v. Pro-Football Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1633, 1634 (TTAB 2011) (Board exercised its authority to require parties to attend a pretrial conference at the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); 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."). See also MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69952 (Oct. 7, 2016) ("Correlative to electronic ... communication, the Board also has made it possible for parties ... and members of the Board to attend hearings remotely through video conference.").