527.01(f)    Motions in Limine

It is not the Board’s practice to make prospective or hypothetical evidentiary rulings. Further, the Board will not screen all of a party’s proffered evidence before trial. Thus, the Board will deny a motion to prospectively exclude evidence that might be introduced at trial and that might be inconsistent with discovery responses or other material not provided during discovery. [ Note 1.] Rather than requesting a discovery sanction prospectively, the better practice is to file a motion to strike or otherwise object to such evidence after it is introduced, identifying the specific evidence objected to and the asserted basis for exclusion thereof. If the objection is one that cannot be cured promptly, the adverse party may wait and raise the objection in or with its main brief on the case. [ Note 2.] See TBMP § 707.

NOTES:

 1.   See Greenhouse Systems Inc. v. Carson, 37 USPQ2d 1748, 1750 (TTAB 1995).

 2.   See, e.g., Hunter Industries Inc. v. Toro Co., 110 USPQ2d 1651, 1656 n.11 (TTAB 2014), appeal dismissed per stipulation, No. 14-CV-4463 (D. Minn. Jan. 20, 2016) (as Board does not entertain motions in limine, opposer was unable to raise the matter by motion until applicant submitted declarations during its testimony period); RTX Scientific Inc. v. Nu-Calgon Wholesaler Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1492, 1493 (TTAB 2013) ("Board does not make prospective or hypothetical evidentiary rulings."); Dan Foam ApS v. Sleep Innovations Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1939, 1942 (TTAB 2013) (Board does not entertain motions in limine or otherwise exclude evidence prospectively); Carl Karcher Enters. Inc. v. Carl’s Bar & Delicatessen Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1370, 1372 n.3 (TTAB 2011) ("While the pretrial disclosures in court may be important to the resolution of motions in limine handled prior to trial, the Board does not hear and resolve such motions in its practice."); General Council of the Assemblies of God v. Heritage Music Foundation, 97 USPQ2d 1890, 1893-94 (TTAB 2011) (Board does not hear motions in limine; whether expert is qualified cannot be imputed from technical deficiencies in originally served expert disclosure but may be raised later at the appropriate time); Byer California v. Clothing for Modern Times Ltd., 95 USPQ2d 1175, 1178 (TTAB 2010) ("Turning next to applicant’s motion to exclude, the motion is not construed as a motion in limine, which the Board does not hear. Rather, under the circumstances of this case, applicant’s motion is more akin to a motion to quash a notice of testimonial deposition based on insufficient or unreasonable notice.") (citing Greenhouse Systems Inc. v. Carson, 37 USPQ2d 1748, 1750 (TTAB 1995)).