401    Introduction to Disclosures and Discovery

37 C.F.R. §  2.120(a)(1)  [Discovery.] In general. Except as otherwise provided in this section, and wherever appropriate, the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to disclosure and discovery shall apply in opposition, cancellation, interference and concurrent use registration proceedings. The provisions of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to required disclosures, the conference of the parties to discuss settlement and to develop a disclosure and discovery plan, the scope, proportionality, timing and sequence of discovery, protective orders, signing of disclosures and discovery responses, and supplementation of disclosures and discovery responses, are applicable to Board proceedings in modified form, as noted in these rules and as may be detailed in any order instituting an inter partes proceeding or subsequent scheduling order. The Board will specify the deadline for a discovery conference, the opening and closing dates for the taking of discovery, and the deadlines within the discovery period for making initial disclosures and expert disclosure. The trial order setting these deadlines and dates will be included within the notice of institution of the proceeding.

Through the use of the various disclosures (i.e., initial and expert) and discovery devices (i.e., discovery depositions, interrogatories, requests for production of documents and things, and requests for admission) available to litigants in inter partes proceedings before the Board, a party may ascertain the facts underlying its adversary’s case. Discovery of these facts may lead to a settlement of the case, may simplify the issues, or may reveal a basis for a motion for summary judgment, an additional claim (in the case of a plaintiff), or an additional defense or counterclaim (in the case of a defendant). At the very least, taking discovery enables the propounding party to propose to the responding party stipulations of fact, stipulations as to procedures for introducing into the record evidence produced in response to discovery requests, and to otherwise prepare for trial. Propounding and responding to discovery may further lead parties to stipulate to narrowing the issues for trial, or to stipulate to expedited determination of their case under the Board’s Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR) process. [ Note 1.] See TBMP § 528.05(a)(2), TBMP § 702.04 and TBMP § 705 for information regarding ACR and stipulations.

The conduct of discovery in Board inter partes proceedings is governed by 37 C.F.R. § 2.120. Discovery before the Board under 37 C.F.R. § 2.120  is similar in many respects to discovery before the federal district courts under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ordinarily, the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable in Board inter partes proceedings, except as otherwise provided in 37 C.F.R. § 2.120. The provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to automatic disclosure and discovery conferences are applicable to inter partes proceedings. However, the Board has adopted a modified disclosure and conferencing regime. [ Note 2.] All parties to Board proceedings are obliged to (1) conduct a discovery conference to discuss, inter alia, disclosure and discovery plans, and (2) make initial, expert, and pretrial disclosures. The Board adopted the disclosure regime of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to promote the early exchange of information and earlier settlement of cases and, for cases that do not settle, "more efficient discovery and trial, [reduction of] incidents of unfair surprise, and [to] increase the likelihood of fair disposition of the parties’ claims and defenses." [ Note 3.] In addition, the utilization of initial and expert disclosures is intended to "obviate the need to use traditional discovery to obtain ‘basic information’ about a party’s claims or defenses." [ Note 4.] In the absence of any express written statement from the parties filed with the Board that they waive their reciprocal rights to obtain disclosures or agree to restrictions on the use of particular discovery devices, the Board will presume the parties will comply with their obligation to make all required disclosures and will utilize traditional discovery devices, as permitted by the Trademark Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [ Note 5.]

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

For a discussion of when discovery requests, discovery responses, and disclosures should be filed with the Board, see TBMP § 409 and 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(k)(8).

For information regarding pretrial disclosures, see TBMP § 702.01.

For information regarding Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR), see TBMP § 528.05(a)(2), TBMP § 702.04, and TBMP § 705.

NOTES:

 1.   For a discussion of the purposes served by discovery, see Fischer Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. Molnar & Co., 203 USPQ 861, 865 (TTAB 1979). See also Bison Corp. v. Perfecta Chemie B.V., 4 USPQ2d 1718, 1720 (TTAB 1987); Smith International, Inc. v. Olin Corp., 201 USPQ 250, 250 (TTAB 1978). For a discussion of ACR, see, for example, Eveready Battery Co., Inc. v. Green Planet, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1511, 1513 (TTAB 2009).

 2.   MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42244-47 (August 1, 2007); 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).

 3.   MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42244 and 42246 (August 1, 2007). See also Luster Products Inc. v. Van Zandt, 104 USPQ2d 1877, 1879-80 n.5 (TTAB 2012) (citing August 1, 2007 final rule); Spier Wines (PTY) Ltd. v. Shepher, 105 USPQ2d 1239, 1246 (TTAB 2012) (disclosures, from initial through pretrial, and discovery responses should be viewed as a continuum of communication designed to avoid unfair surprise and to facilitate a fair adjudication of the case on the merits); General Council of the Assemblies of God v. Heritage Music Foundation, 97 USPQ2d 1890, 1893 (TTAB 2011) (adoption of disclosure model intended to provide an orderly administration of the proceeding as it moves to trial).

 4.   MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42244 and 42246 (August 1, 2007).

 5.   Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Chaveriat, 87 USPQ2d 1767, 1767-68 (TTAB 2008).

401.01    Discovery Conferences

37 C.F.R. §  2.120(a)(1)  [Discovery] . . . The provisions of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to . . . the conference of the parties to discuss settlement and to develop a disclosure and discovery plan . . . are applicable to Board proceedings in modified form . . . . The Board will specify the deadline for a discovery conference . . . . * * * *

37 C.F.R §2.120(a)(2) 

(i) The discovery conference shall occur no later than the opening of the discovery period, and the parties must discuss the subjects set forth in Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and any subjects set forth in the Board’s institution order. A Board Interlocutory Attorney or Administrative Trademark Judge will participate in the conference upon request of any party made after answer but no later than ten days prior to the deadline for the conference, or when the Board deems it useful for the parties to have Board involvement. The participating attorney or judge may expand or reduce the number or nature of subjects to be discussed in the conference as may be deemed appropriate.

* * * *

(v) The parties are not required to prepare or transmit to the Board a written report outlining their discovery conference discussions, unless the parties have agreed to alter disclosure or discovery obligations set forth by these rules or applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or unless directed to file such a report by a participating Board Interlocutory Attorney or Administrative Trademark Judge.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2) Conference Content; Parties’ Responsibilities. In conferring, the parties must consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case; . . . discuss any issues about preserving discoverable information; and develop a proposed discovery plan.

For all inter partes proceedings, the parties are required to hold a discovery conference to discuss the subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and in the institution order for the case. [ Note 1.] As specified in the Board’s institution order:

"The parties are required to schedule and hold a discovery conference by the deadline in the schedule in this order, or as reset by the Board. In the conference, the parties are required to discuss, at a minimum, 1) the nature and basis of their claims and defenses, 2) the possibility of promptly settling, or at least narrowing the scope of claims or defenses, and 3) arrangements for disclosures, discovery, preserving discoverable information and introduction of evidence at trial. For guidance, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), Trademark Rule 2.120(a)(2)(i), and TBMP §§ 401.01 and 408.01(a)."

The conference is not limited to the subjects listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) or in the Board’s institution order, and "the parties are free to discuss any additional topics that could promote settlement or efficient adjudication of the Board proceeding," including alternative means for adjudication such as the Board’s Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR) procedure. [ Note 2.] See TBMP § 528.05(a)(2) and TBMP § 702.04 for further information on ACR. Because the parties may enter into stipulations altering disclosure obligations, they should continue to discuss their reciprocal obligations and progress made in satisfying such obligations even after the discovery conference has been held.

The conference should take place once the pleadings have closed and by the deadline set forth in the Board’s institution order (or by any extended deadline approved by the Board), and must take place no later than the opening of the discovery period. [ Note 3.] In instances, however, where the defendant is in default, or a pleading motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 has been filed, or a counterclaim has been filed, the parties’ obligation to have a discovery conference is tolled or effectively stayed. [ Note 4.] The rationale is that an answer must be filed to all claims and counterclaims, and issues related to the pleadings resolved, before the parties can have a meaningful discovery conference. In such cases, the Board will reset the deadline for the discovery conference, as well as all subsequent dates, upon resolution of the default or Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 motion, or acknowledgement of the counterclaim, which may include setting or resetting the deadline for filing an answer. [ Note 5.] Generally after an answer is filed, the Board is unlikely to find good cause to extend the deadline for the discovery conference for settlement negotiations, even upon stipulation or consent. [ Note 6.] There is no Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) scheduling/conference order.

The parties’ discovery conference may be in person or by other means (e.g. telephone). [ Note 7.] If any party wants a Board professional to participate in the required discovery conference, the party must submit such request through ESTTA, the Board’s electronic filing system, or call the Board attorney assigned to the case no later than ten (10) days prior to the deadline for conducting the discovery conference, so as to facilitate completion of the conference by the deadline. [ Note 8.] A party requesting the Board's participation in the discovery conference should also inform the Board, either in their filing or in the phone call to the Board, of any other proceedings between the parties involving the mark(s) at issue.

Submitting a request using ESTTA is preferred; however, parties are encouraged to follow up a few days later with a phone call to the Board attorney assigned to the case if they have not yet been contacted by a Board attorney. Board participation is encouraged where pro se litigants are involved. [ Note 9.] The Board, on its own initiative, may elect to participate in the discovery conference when the Board deems it useful for the parties to have Board involvement. [ Note 10.] The participating attorney or judge has discretion to expand or reduce the number or nature of subjects to be discussed during the conference. [ Note 11.] For instance, the Board professional may ascertain whether the parties have previously engaged in settlement discussions, explain to the parties the Board’s ACR option, and may inquire whether the parties need additional time after the conference to discuss settlement. [ Note 12.] Participation by a Board professional will be by telephone. [ Note 13.] The conference will not be recorded by the Board and shall not be recorded by the parties. [ Note 14.]

If a party desires the appearance of more than one counsel on behalf of a party in a discovery conference with Board participation, that party is to designate a lead counsel to represent the party in the conference. With respect to pro se parties, the person who appears on behalf of the party, must be authorized under 37 C.F.R. § 11.14(e). See TBMP §114.01 (Party May Represent Itself). If a pro se litigant desires to have counsel appear on its behalf strictly for purposes of the discovery conference with Board participation, such counsel shall file a notice of appearance prior to the conduct of the discovery conference for this limited purpose. Subsequently, counsel will file a notice of withdrawal, unless counsel has been retained by the party to take further action on behalf of the party in the case. See TBMP § 116.01 for information regarding termination of representation.

In discovery conferences with Board participation, parties must conduct themselves with appropriate decorum and interruptions are to be avoided. [ Note 15.] The Board professional participating in the conference generally will signal that a party may make a presentation by inviting the party to do so or by inviting a response to a presentation made by another. The Board professional may make other requirements for the orderly conduct of the discovery conference.

If neither party requests Board participation in the discovery conference and the Board does not elect to participate in the conference on its own initiative, the parties still must conference no later than the prescribed deadline, and the Board will operate on the assumption that the conference was held by the deadline. The mere discussion of settlement among the parties does not substitute for a full discovery conference of subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and the Board’s institution order. [ Note 16.]

The parties do not have to file a disclosure/discovery plan with the Board following their discovery conference, unless they are seeking leave by motion or stipulation to alter standard deadlines or obligations, or unless they were directed to do so by the Board. [ Note 17.]

The Board has the authority to order parties to hold a discovery conference, either sua sponte or upon motion. [ Note 18.]

For a discussion regarding the duty to cooperate in scheduling and conducting a discovery conference, and the imposition of sanctions for the failure to participate in a discovery conference, see TBMP § 408.01(a).

For general information on the conduct of telephone conferences, participation in telephone conferences, and issuance of rulings resulting from telephone conferences, see TBMP § 502.06(a).

NOTES:

 1.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(i); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). See, e.g., Promgirl, Inc. v. JPC Co., 94 USPQ2d 1759, 1761-62 (TTAB 2009) (mere discussion of settlement does not substitute for full discovery conference of subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and Board’s institution order). See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 and 42252 (August 1, 2007) for information about the adoption of a discovery conference in Board proceedings.

 2.   MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 and 42252 (August 1, 2007). See Weatherford/Lamb Inc. v. C&J Energy Servs., Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1834, 1836 n.4 (TTAB 2010) (parties encouraged to discuss ACR during discovery conference). See also MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69959 and 69961 (October 7, 2016) (if voluminous production is anticipated, method of service is worthwhile issue to discuss at Board discovery conference; production of ESI is a subject for discussion at discovery).

 3.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(i). See also MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007).

 4.   37 C.F.R. § 2.106(a), 37 C.F.R. § 2.114(a)  and 37 C.F.R. § 2.127(d). MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69957, 69959 and 69967 (October 7, 2016). See also MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007) (filing of a counterclaim results in proceeding effectively being stayed).

 5.   MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007).

 6.   MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007). See Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Chaveriat, 87 USPQ2d 1767, 1767 n.1 (TTAB 2008) ("The Board is unlikely to find good cause when such a request is based on the parties’ desire to engage in settlement discussions.").

 7.   MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007).

 8.   See 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(i); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007). But see Promgirl, Inc. v. JPC Co., 94 USPQ2d 1759, 1762 (TTAB 2009) (Board professional can participate in discovery conference with less than ten days’ notice in instances where parties are at an impasse; conference may take place after deadline in those circumstances).

 9.   MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42252 (August 1, 2007) ("... Board professionals involved in conferences will fill the educator’s role [that] would have to be filled by experienced counsel.").

 10.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(i); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69960 (October 7, 2016).

 11.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(i).

 12.   MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42252 (August 1, 2007).

 13.   MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007).

 14.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(j)(3).

 15.   37 C.F.R. § 2.192; 37 C.F.R. § 11.305(d).

 16.   Promgirl, Inc. v. JPC Co., 94 USPQ2d 1759, 1761-62 (TTAB 2009).

 17.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(v); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007).

 18   See, e.g., Promgirl, Inc. v. JPC Co., 94 USPQ2d 1759, 1763 (TTAB 2009).

401.02    Initial Disclosures

37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(ii)  Initial disclosures must be made no later than thirty days after the opening of the discovery period.

37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(3)  A party must make its initial disclosures prior to seeking discovery, absent modification of this requirement by a stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or a motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. * * * *

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosure.

  • (A) In General. Except as exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or as otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties:
    • (i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information — along with the subjects of that information — that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;
    • (ii) a copy — or a description by category and location — of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment . . . .

Each party involved in an inter partes proceeding is obligated to make initial disclosures to every other party, by the deadline set in the Board’s institution order, or as may be reset by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or by motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. [ Note 1.] A party may not seek discovery through traditional devices until after it has made its initial disclosures, absent modification of this requirement by a stipulation or motion of the parties approved by the Board, or upon Board order. [ Note 2.] Generally, each party will meet this obligation by complying with the disclosure requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i) and (ii); subsections (iii) and (iv) of Rule 26(a)(1)(A) do not apply to Board proceedings. [ Note 3.] "Initial disclosures are not intended to substitute for all discovery but, rather, to prompt routine disclosure of names of potential witnesses and basic information about documents and things that a party may use to support a claim or defense." [ Note 4.]

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), a party is not obligated to disclose the name of every witness, document or thing that may have or contain discoverable information about its claim or defense, but merely the witnesses, documents and things having or containing discoverable "information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses." [ Note 5.] If, however, a party does identify a trial witness in its initial disclosures, the party must provide the subject matter(s) about which each identified witness is likely to have discoverable information, as well as any known addresses and/or phone numbers for the identified witness. In addition, a party must either provide the location of all identified documents in its initial disclosures or, in the alternative, produce them. [ Note 6.]

Initial disclosures are not a substitute for taking comprehensive discovery. [ Note 7.] Nonetheless, discovery in Board proceedings should be more limited in scope than in district court cases since Board jurisdiction is limited to determining a party’s right to obtain or retain a registration. [ Note 8.] However, in the spirit of cooperation, parties can, subject to Board approval, stipulate to rely on more expansive use of reciprocal disclosures in lieu of formal discovery, as a more efficient and less costly means of litigating a Board proceeding. [ Note 9.]

There is no concept of priority in regard to initial disclosures, and a party is not relieved of its obligation to make or supplement initial disclosures merely because it may not have received such disclosures or supplementation from an adverse party or parties. [ Note 10.] For information regarding the duty to supplement initial disclosures, see TBMP § 408.03.

A party making initial disclosures has the option of disclosing information about the existence and location of documents instead of producing copies of documents. [ Note 11.] However, the Board encourages parties to actually exchange copies of disclosed documents rather than to merely identify their location. [ Note 12.]

Initial written disclosures and initial disclosures of documents are treated like responses to discovery requests insofar as they may be used in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment and, at trial, may be introduced by notice of reliance. [ Note 13.] For more information on motions for summary judgment and introduction of disclosures at trial by notice of reliance, see TBMP § 528 and TBMP § 704.14.

Pertinent information under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) stored in digital or electronic form must also be identified in initial disclosures. For further information regarding the discovery of electronically stored information, see TBMP § 402.02.

A party failing to make initial disclosures may be subject to a motion to compel, and ultimately, a motion for discovery sanctions. [ Note 14.] A motion to compel initial disclosures must be filed within thirty days after the disclosure deadline. [ Note 15.] For further information regarding motions to compel initial disclosures, see TBMP § 523.

In addition, a party may not file a motion for summary judgment until the party has made its initial disclosures, except for a motion asserting claim or issue preclusion or lack of jurisdiction by the Board. [ Note 16.]

For further information regarding the duty to cooperate and remedies for failure to make initial disclosures, see TBMP § 408.01(b) and TBMP § 411.01.

NOTES:

 1.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(ii), 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(iv), and 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(3).

 2.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(3). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Wax, 93 USPQ2d 1702, 1704-06 (TTAB 2009) (party objecting to discovery due to proponent’s alleged failure to make initial disclosures must specifically articulate that objection); Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Chaveriat, 87 USPQ2d 1767, 1768 (TTAB 2008) (parties’ notice of waiver of initial disclosures approved).

 3.   See 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(1). See also MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007); Influance Inc. v. Zuker, 88 USPQ2d 1859, 1861 (TTAB 2008) (initial disclosures must be signed by party or party’s attorney to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)).

 4.   MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007).

 5.   MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007). See Great Seats Inc. v. Great Seats Ltd., 100 USPQ2d 1323, 1326 (TTAB 2011) (because an exhaustive search for all information or potential witnesses is not required, Board did not exclude the testimony of certain witnesses named for the first time in pretrial disclosures based on the failure to name them in initial disclosures, though the testimony for most witnesses was excluded for other reasons); Jules Jurgensen/Rhapsody Inc. v. Baumberger, 91 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 n.1 (TTAB 2009) ("A party need not, through its mandatory initial disclosures, identify particular individuals as prospective trial witnesses, per se, but must identify ‘each individual likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses.’ . . . Individuals identified through initial disclosures therefore could reasonably be viewed as possible witnesses.").

See also Kate Spade LLC v. Thatch, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1098, 1103-04 (TTAB 2018) (where applicant’s initial disclosures provided notice that applicant would submit documentary evidence of third-party use at trial, and its supplemental initial disclosures described unnamed witnesses who would testify regarding third-party use, applicant’s failure to make pretrial disclosure of certain witnesses was substantially justified and harmless). But see Byer California v. Clothing for Modern Times Ltd., 95 USPQ2d 1175, 1179 (TTAB 2010) (where opposer identified trial witness in pretrial disclosures who was not identified in initial disclosures, opposer ordered to serve revised pretrial disclosures limiting testimony of the previously undisclosed witness to subjects other than those on which a previously disclosed witness who was identified in initial disclosures could testify).

 6.   Influance Inc. v. Zuker, 88 USPQ2d 1859, 1861 (TTAB 2008).

 7.   MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007).

 8.   MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245-46 (August 1, 2007). See also MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69951 (October 7, 2016) ("The Board continues to view the universe of [electronically stored information] within the context of its narrower scope of jurisdiction, as compared to that of the federal district courts."); Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc., 2021 USPQ2d 988, at *9-10 (TTAB 2021) ("In view of the Board’s limited jurisdiction and the narrowness of issues decided in Board cases, discovery in Board cases is generally narrower than that in court proceedings."); Frito-Lay North America Inc. v. Princeton Vanguard LLC, 100 USPQ2d 1904, 1907 (TTAB 2011) (scope of discovery in Board proceedings generally narrower than in court proceedings).

 9.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(iv). See also MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69960 (October 7, 2016) ("parties may stipulate … that reciprocal disclosures be used in place of discovery").

 10.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(E).

 11.   MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42254 (August 1, 2007).

 12.   Influance Inc. v. Zuker, 88 USPQ2d 1859, 1861 n.4 (TTAB 2008).

 13.   37 C.F.R. § 2.127(e)(2); 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(g); 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(k)(3)(i)  - 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(k)(3)(ii). See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69962 (October 7, 2016); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007).

 14.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(f)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(h); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42256 (August 1, 2007). See also Luster Products Inc. v. Van Zandt, 104 USPQ2d 1877, 1878-79 (TTAB 2012) (motion to compel is available remedy for failure to serve, or insufficient, initial disclosures).

 15.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(f)(1); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69961 (October 7, 2016).

 16.   37 C.F.R. § 2.127(e)(1). See, e.g., Qualcomm, Inc. v. FLO Corp., 93USPQ2d 1768, 1769-70 (TTAB 2010) (motion for summary judgment denied as premature where movant had yet to serve initial disclosures). See also Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Precision Formulations LLC, 89 USPQ2d 1251, 1255-56 (TTAB 2009) ("Because the Board does not allow a party to file a motion for summary judgment prior to the moving party’s service of initial disclosures on the adverse party, the Board generally will no longer exercise its discretion to convert motions to dismiss that refer to matters outside the pleadings into motions for summary judgment, if such motions are filed before the moving party serves its initial disclosures.").

401.03    Expert Disclosures

37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(iii)  . . . Disclosure of expert testimony must occur in the manner and sequence provided in Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, unless alternate directions have been provided by the Board in an institution order or any subsequent order resetting disclosure, discovery or trial dates. If the expert is retained after the deadline for disclosure of expert testimony, the party must promptly file a motion for leave to use expert testimony. Upon disclosure by any party of plans to use expert testimony, whether before or after the deadline for disclosing expert testimony, the Board, either on its own initiative or on notice from either party of the disclosure of expert testimony, may issue an order regarding expert discovery and/or set a deadline for any other party to disclose plans to use a rebuttal expert.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony.

  • (A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705.
  • (B) Witnesses Who Must Provide a Written Report. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this disclosure must be accompanied by a written report — prepared and signed by the witness — if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the party’s employee regularly involve giving expert testimony. The report must contain:
    • (i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them;
    • (ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them;
    • (iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them;
    • (iv) the witness’s qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years;
    • (v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and
    • (vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.
  • (C) Witnesses Who Do Not Provide a Written Report. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, if the witness is not required to provide a written report, this disclosure must state:
    • (i) the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705; and
    • (ii) a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify.
  • (D) Time to Disclose Expert Testimony. A party must make these disclosures at the times and in the sequence that the court orders. Absent a stipulation or a court order, the disclosures must be made:
    • (i) at least 90 days before the date set for trial or for the case to be ready for trial; or
    • (ii) if the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) or (C), within 30 days after the other party’s disclosure.
  • (E) Supplementing the Disclosure. The parties must supplement these disclosures when required under Rule 26(e).

Although not frequently utilized in Board proceedings, experts in Board inter partes proceedings are typically recruited on the basis of experience in the relevant trade or industry and not on the basis of personal knowledge of or on-the-scene involvement in any sequence of events that gave rise to the Board proceedings. [ Note 1.] As set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, made applicable to Board proceedings by 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(a), "[a] witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case." [ Note 2.] A party generally must decide within the discovery period whether it plans to use an expert to testify at trial since expert disclosure is due 30 days prior to the close of discovery, or by any deadline that may be reset by any order of the Board issued after the initial institution order, but the expert disclosure deadline must always be scheduled prior to the close of discovery whenever disclosure and discovery deadlines are modified. [ Note 3.]

The extent of the expert disclosure obligation is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2). [ Note 4.] Parties are not required to disclose consulting experts. [ Note 5.] On the other hand, both retained, specially employed experts, and unretained experts must be disclosed. [ Note 6.] Only retained experts are required to provide a report, unless otherwise stipulated. [ Note 7.] For unretained experts, a party must provide the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703, or 705; and a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify. [ Note 8.]

The disclosure of planned or possible expert testimony by any party must be made by the expert disclosure deadline, regardless of whether any other party has made such disclosure. Thus, for example, if a defendant has plans to present, or may present, expert testimony to support an affirmative defense, regardless of whether a plaintiff may use expert testimony in support of a main claim, then the defendant must disclose the planned or possible presentation of such testimony by the deadline set by the Board. [ Note 9.] If a party decides after the deadline for expert disclosure that it would like to, or may need to, rely on expert testimony at trial, the party must file a motion for leave to use the expert at trial. [ Note 10.] The provisions regarding the timing of expert disclosure are intended to facilitate the taking of any necessary discovery by any party or parties adverse to the disclosing party, in regard to the proposed expert witness, and to allow the adverse party or parties to determine whether it will be necessary to rely on a rebutting expert. Parties are expected to cooperate in the process of exchanging information about any testifying experts, and should at least discuss, during the discovery conference, the possibility of entering into stipulations that will facilitate the exchange of such information and/or the presentation of expert testimony. The parties should revisit these discussions whenever it appears that a testifying expert witness may become involved in the case. [ Note 11.]

Any party disclosing plans to use an expert must notify the Board that it has made the required disclosure (but should not file with the Board copies of the materials provided to adverse parties) to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2). [ Note 12.] The Board may then suspend proceedings to allow for discovery limited to experts. [ Note 13.] The suspension order may leave unchanged the deadline specified in the Federal Rule for disclosure of plans to use a rebuttal expert, or may reset the deadline, depending upon the circumstances at the time the Board issues the suspension order. Suspension is as to activities unrelated to the exchange of information about, and reports by, expected expert witnesses, and the parties should continue with the expert disclosure procedures specified in the Federal Rule pending issuance of any suspension order by the Board that will specify any actions of the parties required by the Board. If a party discloses plans to use an expert witness early in the discovery period, the Board may choose not to suspend discovery activities unrelated to the expected expert witnesses and may direct that all discovery activities continue concurrently with the disclosures and discovery relative to the experts. [ Note 14.] There may be cases in which a party may not decide until after the deadline for expert disclosure that it needs to present an expert witness at trial. In such cases, disclosure must be made promptly when the expert is retained and a motion for leave to present testimony by the expert must be filed. [ Note 15.] Prompt disclosure after the deadline, however, does not necessarily ensure that the expert’s testimony or evidence will be allowed into the record at trial. [ Note 16.] The Board will decide on a case-by-case basis how to handle a party’s late identification of experts. [ Note 17.]

Upon disclosure by any party of plans to use expert testimony, whether before or after the deadline for disclosing expert testimony, the Board, either on its own initiative or on notice from either party of the disclosure of expert testimony, may issue an order regarding expert discovery and/or set a deadline for any other party to disclose plans to use a rebuttal expert. [ Note 18.]

A party has the prerogative of deciding not to use a designated expert for testimony. [ Note 19.] In addition, a party may be permitted to withdraw a previously disclosed expert and expert report and substitute a new expert witness and expert report. [ Note 20.] However, if the substitution occurs after the expert disclosure deadline, the Board will consider whether the substitution is substantially justified or harmless. [ Note 21.] A party may redesignate a testifying expert witness as a non-testifying or consulting expert. [ Note 22.] If a party redesignates the designated testifying expert witness as a non-testifying or consulting expert after an expert report has been disclosed, the expert will be subject to deposition only under exceptional circumstances. [ Note 23.] If a party discloses an expert report after the expert disclosure deadline, the Board will consider whether the late disclosure is substantially justified or harmless. [ Note 24.]

A motion to compel an expert testimony disclosure must be filed prior to the close of the discovery period. [ Note 25.] For further information regarding motions to compel, see TBMP § 523.

A party may supplement or correct its expert disclosures "if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure . . . is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing." [ Note 26.] A party may supplement or correct information included in an expert report and information given in the expert’s deposition testimony up to and including the due date for a party’s pretrial disclosures. [ Note 27.] Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e), however, does not allow an expert to bolster previously disclosed opinions or to add new opinions. [ Note 28.]

Rebuttal expert reports should be limited to a rebuttal or critique of the methods proposed by the expert report and the analysis of the data that resulted. [ Note 29.] Under appropriate circumstances, sur-rebuttal expert testimony may be allowed so long as a party that wishes to provide a sur-rebuttal expert report promptly seeks leave of the Board. [ Note 30.]

For further information regarding the duty to cooperate and to the duty to supplement with regard to expert disclosures, see TBMP § 408.01(b) and TBMP § 408.03. For information regarding remedies for failure to disclose or inadequate expert disclosures, see TBMP § 411.01.

NOTES:

 1.   RTX Scientific Inc. v. Nu-Calgon Wholesaler Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1492, 1494-95 (TTAB 2013).

 2.   Fed. R. Evid. 702. See also Fed. R. Evid. 702, Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules. See, e.g., McDonald’s Corp. v. McSweet, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1268, 1298 n.58 (TTAB 2014) ("While a party is not required to employ an expert to be able to direct criticisms to an opposing party’s survey, having a qualified expert confirm that the criticisms reflect the relevant standards employed in the survey field would lend additional weight to such criticisms."); Alcatraz Media, Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1757 (TTAB 2013) (witness qualified as an expert in the field of travel writing and journalism based on professional experience as a travel writer and editor), aff’d mem, 565 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

 3.   See 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(iii)  and 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(iv). See also MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69960 (October 7, 2016) ("an expert disclosure deadline must always be scheduled prior to the close of discovery"); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007) (in the absence of an order from the Board setting a deadline, expert disclosures are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), per 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)); General Council of the Assemblies of God v. Heritage Music Foundation, 97 USPQ2d 1890, 1893 (TTAB 2011) (party is to disclose its plan to use an expert 30 days before the close of discovery).

 4.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(iii). See RTX Scientific Inc. v. Nu-Calgon Wholesaler Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1492, 1494 (TTAB 2013) (use of testifying expert); General Council of the Assemblies of God v. Heritage Music Foundation, 97 USPQ2d 1890, 1891-92 (TTAB 2011).

 5.   See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42254 (August 1, 2007). See also Fed. R. Civ. P 26(b)(4)(D); Ate My Heart, Inc. v. GA GA Jeans Ltd., 111 USPQ2d 1564, 1567 (TTAB 2014) (discussing the differences between testifying and consulting experts in connection with redesignation of a testifying expert as a consulting expert).

 6.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A).

 7.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C). See RTX Scientific Inc. v. Nu-Calgon Wholesaler Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1492, 1495 (TTAB 2013) (an expert is retained for purposes of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and required to provide a written report "[w]here an expert’s opinion testimony arises from his enlistment as an expert and not from an on-the-scene involvement in any incidents giving rise to the litigation").

 8.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C). A witness under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) may testify as both a fact witness and also provide expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703 or 705. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) Committee Notes on Rules – 2010 Amendment.

 9.   See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007).

 10.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(iii). See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007).

 11.   See General Council of the Assemblies of God v. Heritage Music Foundation, 97 USPQ2d 1890, 1893 n.3 (TTAB 2011) (parties expected to cooperate to resolve problems arising from timely but incomplete expert disclosures).

 12.   See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007). RTX Scientific Inc. v. Nu-Calgon Wholesaler Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1492, 1493 n.3 (TTAB 2013) (a party must notify the Board of its plan to use an expert (without including copies of expert disclosures), and that it has made required expert disclosures to adversary; the best practice is to notify the Board concurrently with the expert disclosures to adverse party). But see Monster Energy Co. v. Martin, 125 USPQ2d 1774, 1776 (TTAB 2018) ("even the failure to inform the Board of the timely disclosure of an expert witness is not a ground to exclude the noticed testimony of such witness"); General Council of the Assemblies of God v. Heritage Music Foundation, 97 USPQ2d 1890, 1893 (TTAB 2011) (37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2) does not mandate that a disclosing party inform the Board that an expert disclosure has been made; disclosing party’s failure to notify the Board is not a ground to exclude the testimony).

 13.   See 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(iii); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69960 (October 7, 2016); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007); Monster Energy Co. v. Martin, 125 USPQ2d 1774, 1777-78 (TTAB 2018) ("Trademark Rule 2.120(a)(2)(iii) provides the Board wide latitude in managing a proceeding following any party's disclosure of plans to use expert testimony, including but not limited to, suspending proceedings to allow for discovery of the expert and for any other party to disclose plans to use a rebuttal expert."). But see, General Council of the Assemblies of God v. Heritage Music Foundation, 97 USPQ2d 1890, 1893 (TTAB 2011) ("The purpose of informing the Board of such a disclosure is to facilitate discovery," but notification to the Board may not be necessary if expert-related discovery can be concluded by the close of discovery).

 14.   See General Council of the Assemblies of God v. Heritage Music Foundation, 97 USPQ2d 1890, 1893 (TTAB 2011) (in any given case, suspension of proceedings for expert-related discovery may not be necessary).

 15.   See 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(iii).

 16.   See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007).

 17.   See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246 (August 1, 2007). See, e.g., Entravision Communications Corp. v. Liberman Television LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1526, 1528-29 (TTAB 2015) (after balancing relevant factors, substitution of witness and expert report after expert disclosure deadline due to witness unavailability found to be substantially justified and harmless under circumstances of the case); Gemological Institute of America, Inc. v. Gemology Headquarters International, LLC, 111 USPQ2d 1559, 1563-64 (TTAB 2014) (after balancing relevant factors, untimely disclosure of expert opinion found neither substantially justified nor harmless under circumstances of case).

 18.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(iii); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69960 (October 7, 2016).

 19.   Ate My Heart, Inc. v. GA GA Jeans Ltd., 111 USPQ2d 1564, 1567 (TTAB 2014).

 20.   Entravision Communications Corp. v. Liberman Television LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1526, 1528-29 (TTAB 2015).

 21.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). See, e.g., Entravision Communications Corp. v. Liberman Television LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1526, 1528 (TTAB 2015) (substitution of expert and expert report after expert disclosure deadline).

 22.   Ate My Heart, Inc. v. GA GA Jeans Ltd., 111 USPQ2d 1564, 1567, 1567 n.9 (TTAB 2014) (noting that a designated expert witness can be redesignated as a non-testifying or consulting expert and shielded from discovery).

 23.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(D)(ii); Ate My Heart, Inc. v. GA GA Jeans Ltd., 111 USPQ2d 1564, 1568 (TTAB 2014) (showing of exceptional circumstances required in case of noticed deposition (without subpoena) of party’s redesignated consulting expert). Please Note: The Board has no jurisdiction over depositions of non-parties by subpoena.

 24.   See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). See, e.g., Entravision Communications Corp. v. Liberman Television LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1526, 1528 (TTAB 2015) (substitution of expert and expert report); Gemological Institute of America, Inc. v. Gemology Headquarters Int’l, LLC, 111 USPQ2d 1559, 1562 (TTAB 2014) (untimely expert report).

 25.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(f); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69961 (October 7, 2016).

 26.   See Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. General Cigar Co., 2020 USPQ2d 10988, at *2 (TTAB 2020) (discussing what is proper supplementation of an expert report); Gemological Institute of America, Inc. v. Gemology Headquarters International, LLC, 111 USPQ2d 1559, 1561-62 (TTAB 2014) (same).

 27.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(2).Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. General Cigar Co., 2020 USPQ2d 10988, at *3 (TTAB 2020) (supplemental expert reports filed on the due date of pretrial disclosures are timely); Entravision Communications Corp. v. Liberman Television LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1526, 1528 n.5 (TTAB 2015) (motion to substitute an expert witness and new expert report analyzed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)).

 28.   See Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. General Cigar Co., 2020 USPQ2d 10988, at *4 (TTAB 2020) (respondent failed to demonstrate that "the [expert] Supplemental Report corrects, clarifies, or fills in a gap in the Original Report that rendered the original disclosure inaccurate or misleading;" seeking to add new examples and illustrations does not constitute proper supplementation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(2)); ProMark Brands Inc. v. GFA Brands, Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1232, 1241 (TTAB 2015) (expert witness not allowed to bolster previously disclosed opinions or to add new opinions). See also Newegg Inc. v. Schoolhouse Outfitters, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1242, 1244 (TTAB 2016) (in connection with leave to file sur-rebuttal expert report, party’s expert precluded from offering corrections or amplifications to original expert report, introducing new evidence or consumer surveys).

 29.   See Newegg Inc. v. Schoolhouse Outfitters, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1242, 1244 (TTAB 2016) (discussing what constitutes proper rebuttal expert report); ProMark Brands Inc. v. GFA Brands, Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1232, 1238-39 (TTAB 2015) (considering whether rebuttal expert report was proper rebuttal).

 30.   Newegg Inc. v. Schoolhouse Outfitters, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1242, 1244 (TTAB 2016).

401.04    Modification of Disclosure Obligations

37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(iv)  The parties may stipulate to a shortening of the discovery period, that there will be no discovery, that the number of discovery requests or depositions be limited, or that reciprocal disclosures be used in place of discovery. Limited extensions of the discovery period may be granted upon stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. If a motion for an extension is denied, the discovery period may remain as originally set or as reset. Disclosure deadlines and obligations may be modified upon written stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board, but the expert disclosure deadline must always be scheduled prior to the close of discovery. If a stipulation or motion for modification is denied, discovery disclosure deadlines may remain as originally set or reset and obligations may remain unaltered.

Disclosure deadlines and obligations may be modified upon written stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. [ Note 1.] However, the expert disclosure deadline must always be scheduled prior to the close of discovery. [ Note 2.] Written initial disclosures or disclosed documents and materials obtained through the disclosure process should not be filed with the Board, except when submitted with a motion relating to disclosure or discovery, or in support of or in response to a motion for summary judgment, or under a notice of reliance, when permitted, during a party’s testimony period. [ Note 3.] The parties may agree to waive or otherwise modify their obligation to make disclosures, but must inform the Board by written stipulation or by motion. [ Note 4.] A party who fails to make the required or adequate disclosures may be subject to a motion to compel, and ultimately a motion for sanctions, including possible judgment. [ Note 5.] See TBMP § 411.01 and TBMP § 523 for further information on motions to compel initial or expert disclosures.

In instances where the defendant is in default, or a pleading motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or counterclaim has been filed, the parties’ obligation to make initial disclosures is tolled or effectively stayed. [ Note 6.] In such cases, the Board will reset the deadline for making initial disclosures, as well as the deadline for the discovery conference and all subsequent dates, after resolving or accounting for the default, motion, or counterclaim. [ Note 7.] For further information regarding the rescheduling of the discovery conference in these circumstances, see TBMP § 401.01.

Pretrial disclosures are not part of the discovery process and, therefore, a motion to compel is not the remedy when a party fails to make, or makes inadequate, pretrial disclosures. See TBMP § 702.01 for further information on pretrial disclosures.

For a discussion regarding extensions of time to make disclosures and the impact of extensions of time regarding the close of discovery on disclosure obligations, see TBMP § 403.04.

NOTES:

 1.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(iv).

 2.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(iv). See also MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69960 (October 7, 2016).

 3.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(k)(8). See also Joel Gott Wines LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1427 n.6 (TTAB 2013) (documents obtained through disclosure may be offered as exhibits in connection with the taking of an adversary’s discovery deposition, and may be introduced as exhibits during the taking of an adversary’s testimony).

 4.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(iv); 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(v); and 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(3). See, e.g., Sheetz of Delaware, Inc. v. Doctor’s Associates Inc., 108 USPQ2d 1341, 1344 (TTAB 2013) (parties stipulated to waive pretrial disclosures); Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Chaveriat, 87 USPQ2d 1767, 1767-68 (TTAB 2008) (waiver of initial disclosures).

 5.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(f)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(h)(1); and 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(h)(2); RTX Scientific Inc. v. Nu-Calgon Wholesaler Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1492, 1493 (TTAB 2013) (motion to compel is an available remedy for inadequate expert disclosures); Promgirl, Inc. v. JPC Co., 94 USPQ2d 1759, 1760 n.2 (TTAB 2009) (motion to compel is remedy when adversary has failed to make or has made inadequate initial disclosures); Influance Inc. v. Zuker, 88 USPQ2d 1859, 1861 (TTAB 2008) (petitioner’s motion to compel amended initial disclosures granted where respondent failed to identify the address or telephone number of listed witnesses, the subject matter(s) about which each has information, and the location or production of identified documents).

 6.   37 C.F.R. § 2.106(a); 37 C.F.R. § 2.114(a); and 37 C.F.R. § 2.127(d). See also MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69957, 69959 (October 7, 2016); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007).

 7.   MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007).

401.05    Form of Disclosures

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(4) Form of Disclosures. Unless the court orders otherwise, all disclosures under Rule 26(a) must be in writing, signed, and served.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) Signing Disclosures and Discovery Requests, Responses, and Objections.

  • (1) Signature Required; Effect of Signature. Every disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1) or (a)(3) and every discovery request, response, or objection must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s own name — or by the party personally, if unrepresented — and must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and telephone number. By signing, an attorney or party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry:
    • (A) with respect to a disclosure, it is complete and correct as of the time it is made * * * *
  • (2) Failure to Sign. Other parties have no duty to act on an unsigned disclosure, request, response, or objection until it is signed, and the court must strike it unless a signature is promptly supplied after the omission is called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.

Disclosures must be in writing, signed by either the party or its attorney, and bear the caption and proceeding number for the case. [ Note 1.] The signer’s address, email address, and telephone number must also be provided. [ Note 2.] Signature of a disclosure constitutes certification that the disclosure is complete and correct at the time it was made. [ Note 3.] Disclosures also must be served. [ Note 4.]

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 specifically exempts privileged information and work product from disclosure.

For a discussion of the duty to supplement initial disclosures, see TBMP § 408.03.

For a discussion of violations of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g), see TBMP § 408.01(c).

NOTES:

 1.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(4); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g). See Influance Inc. v. Zuker, 88 USPQ2d 1859, 1861 (TTAB 2008).

 2.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1).

 3.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(A).

 4.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(4).

401.06    Other Requirements Under the Board’s Disclosure Regime

As noted above, parties are also required to hold a discovery conference discussing the subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) as well as the nature and basis of the involved claims and defenses, the possibility of settlement of the case or modification of the pleadings, and plans for disclosures and discovery and any other subjects that the Board may, in an institution order, require to be discussed. [ Note 1.] The parties are free to discuss additional topics besides those outlined in the institution order that could promote settlement or efficient adjudication of the Board proceeding. [ Note 2.] Because the parties may enter into stipulations altering disclosure obligations, they should continue to discuss their reciprocal obligations, and progress made in satisfying such obligations, even after the discovery conference has been held. [ Note 3.]

A party that has not made initial disclosures may not serve discovery requests or file a motion for summary judgment, except for a motion addressing the Board’s jurisdiction or claim or issue preclusion. [ Note 4.] Under these circumstances, the requirement of service of initial disclosures cannot be waived. [ Note 5.] For a further discussion regarding the timing of filing a motion for summary judgment, see TBMP § 528.02. A party that has not made initial disclosures is also precluded from filing a motion to compel, absent a Board-approved modification of the requirement to make initial disclosures prior to seeking discovery. [ Note 6.]

Parties are also required to make pretrial disclosures prior to the opening of each testimony period. For further information on pretrial disclosures, see TBMP § 702.01.

The Board expects parties (and their attorneys or other authorized representatives) to cooperate with one another in the disclosure and discovery process, and looks with extreme disfavor on those who do not. For further guidance regarding the parties’ duty to cooperate, see TBMP § 408.01.

For a discussion of the duty to supplement written discovery responses and disclosures, see TBMP § 408.03.

NOTES:

 1.   See 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(1)  and 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(i); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69959, 69961 (October 7, 2016); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007); Promgirl, Inc. v. JPC Co., 94 USPQ2d 1759, 1761 (TTAB 2009).

 2.   See, e.g., Promgirl, Inc. v. JPC Co., 94 USPQ2d 1759, 1761 (TTAB 2009).

 3.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(iv); 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(v); and 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(3). See also MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69951 (October 7, 2016) (parties may "stipulate to limit discovery by shortening the period, limiting requests, using reciprocal disclosures in lieu of discovery, or eliminating discovery altogether").

 4.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(3)  and 37 C.F.R. § 2.127(e)(1). See e.g., Qualcomm, Inc. v. FLO Corp., 93 USPQ2d 1768, 1769-70 (TTAB 2010) (motion for summary judgment denied as premature where movant had not yet made and served initial disclosures). See also Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Precision Formulations LLC, 89 USPQ2d 1251, 1255-56 (TTAB 2009) ("Because the Board does not allow a party to file a motion for summary judgment prior to the moving party’s service of initial disclosures on the adverse party, the Board generally will no longer exercise its discretion to convert motions to dismiss that refer to matters outside the pleadings into motions for summary judgment, if such motions are filed before the moving party serves its initial disclosures.").

 5.   Qualcomm, Inc. v. FLO Corp., 93 USPQ2d 1768, 1769-70 (TTAB 2010). But see Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Chaveriat, 87 USPQ2d 1767, 1767-68 (TTAB 2008) (Board approved parties’ stipulation to waive their reciprocal obligation to make initial disclosures).

 6.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(3)  ("A party must make its initial disclosures prior to seeking discovery, absent modification of this requirement by a stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or a motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board."). See Dating DNA, LLC v. Imagini Holdings, LLC, 94 USPQ2d 1889, 1893 (TTAB 2010) (motion to compel denied where moving party failed to make initial disclosures).