501.01 In General
Subject to the approval of the Board, parties may stipulate to a wide variety of matters. For example, parties may stipulate: that times be extended or reopened; that the total number of interrogatories or requests for production that one party may serve upon another party in a proceeding may be reduced from the limitation specified in 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(d) or 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(e); that the production of documents and things under the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 may be made in a specified place and/or manner [ Note 1.]; that a specific time zone applies to the service of discovery requests, or responses [ Note 2.]; that protective agreements or provisions different from or in substitution for the Board’s standard protective order be used [ Note 3.]; that the parties agree to the substance or the form of the facts or testimony in the case [ Note 4.]; that a deposition may be taken at a particular place, or in a certain manner [ Note 5.]; that the proceeding shall be ended in a specified way; or that the proceeding be determined by pretrial disposition on the merits or abbreviated trial on the merits by means of Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR). [ Note 6.] See TBMP § 403.04 (Extensions of Discovery Period, Time to Respond to Discovery Requests, and Disclosures), TBMP § 412.02(a) (Modification of Board’s Standard Protective Order Upon Stipulation), TBMP § 528.05(a)(2) (Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR)), TBMP § 605.03 (Settlement Agreements), TBMP § 702.04 (Accelerated Case Resolution), TBMP § 702.04(e) (Utilizing Stipulations in Non-ACR cases), and TBMP § 705 (Stipulated Evidence and Accelerated Case Resolution).
NOTES:
2. Island, LLC v. JBX Pty Ltd., 2021 USPQ2d 779, at *6-7 n.10 (TTAB 2021) (unless agreed to otherwise, Board considers the date of service to be based on when and where the document in question are submitted for transmission of service).
3. Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc., 2021 USPQ2d 988, at *6-10 (TTAB 2021) (discussing standard for allowing release of protected information to in-house counsel; denying motion to amend standard protective order).
4. 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(b). See, e.g., Board of Regents, University of Texas System v. Southern Illinois Miners LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1182, 1186 (TTAB 2014) (stipulation to the admission and use of produced documents and waiver of objections based on authenticity or hearsay); Harry Winston, Inc. v. Bruce Winston Gem Corp., 111 USPQ2d 1419, 1426 (TTAB 2014) (stipulation to the authenticity of certain documents, retail prices of opposers’ goods, the fact that advertisements and news articles refer to opposers, and press clippings are representative of the media in which opposers advertise); Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1737-38 (TTAB 2014) (parties filed joint stipulation that all documents produced in response to a request for production of documents were deemed authentic business records and were admissible subject to any objections other than authenticity); Target Brands Inc. v. Hughes, 85 USPQ2d 1676, 1678 (TTAB 2007) (the parties stipulated to the entire record, including business records, public records, marketing materials, Internet materials, and 13 paragraphs of facts, while reserving the right to object to such facts and documents on the bases of relevance, materiality and weight).
6. See, e.g., University of Kentucky v. 40-0, LLC, 2021 USPQ2d 253, at *6-7 (TTAB 2021) (parties stipulated to 72 facts and various categories of evidence); Fiserv, Inc. v. Electronic Transaction Systems Corp., 113 USPQ2d 1913, 1916 (TTAB 2015) (parties filed ACR stipulation, agreed to forego discovery, waived disclosures, stipulated to facts and attached documents, filed briefs with additional evidence); Hunter Industries, Inc. v. Toro Co., 110 USPQ2d 1651, 1653 (TTAB 2014), appeal dismissed per stipulation, No. 14-CV-4463 (D. Minn. Jan. 20, 2016) (parties’ stipulation under ACR provided limitations on discovery, excluded filing of motions for summary judgment and use of expert testimony, streamlined methods for introduction of evidence during trial, stipulated to fact regarding no actual confusion); Frito-Lay North America, Inc. v. Princeton Vanguard, LLC, 109 USPQ2d 1949, 1950 (TTAB 2014) (after suggestion by Board in order denying motion for summary judgment, parties stipulated to forego trial and rely on evidence submitted in support of the motions for summary judgment, supplemented by expert declarations, trial briefs and an oral hearing), vacated on other grounds and remanded, 786 F.3d 960, 114 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Chanel Inc. v. Makarczyk, 106 USPQ2d 1774, 1775-76 (TTAB 2013) (approving parties’ stipulation to proceed via ACR).