505    Motion for a More Definite Statement

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) Motion for a More Definite Statement. A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the court orders a more definite statement and the order is not obeyed within 14 days after notice of the order or within the time the court sets, the court may strike the pleading or issue any other appropriate order.

505.01    Nature of Motion

If, in an inter partes proceeding before the Board, a pleading to which a responsive pleading must be made is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the responding party may move for a more definite statement. [ Note 1.] The motion must point out the defects complained of, specify the details which the movant desires to have pleaded, and indicate that the movant is unable to frame a responsive pleading without the desired information. [ Note 2.]

A motion for a more definite statement is appropriate only in those cases where the pleading states a claim upon which relief can be granted, but is so vague or ambiguous that the movant cannot make a responsive pleading in good faith or without prejudice to itself. [ Note 3.] If the movant believes that the pleading does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted, its proper remedy is a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, not a motion for a more definite statement. [ Note 4.]

A motion for a more definite statement may not be used to obtain discovery. The only information that a movant may obtain by this motion is that which it needs to make its responsive pleading. [ Note 5.]

NOTES:

 1.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e); 5C C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE CIVIL § 1377 (3d ed. April 2021 Update). Cf. Covidien LP v. Masimo Corp., 109 USPQ2d 1696, 1700 (TTAB 2014) (after considering a motion to dismiss, Board denied motion, but required petitioner to provide a more definite statement of its request for a § 18 modification or restriction to registrant’s registration); CBS Inc. v. Mercandante, 23 USPQ2d 1784, 1787 n.8 (TTAB 1992) (answer to a counterclaim is not a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted).

 2.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e); 5C C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE CIVIL § 1378 (3d ed. April 2021 Update).

 3.   See 5C C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE CIVIL §§ 1376-77 (3d ed. April 2021 Update).

 4.   See 5C C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE CIVIL § 1376 (3d ed. April 2021 Update).

 5.   See 5C C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE CIVIL §§ 1376-77 (3d ed. April 2021 Update).

505.02    Time for Filing

A motion for a more definite statement, if filed, must be filed within the time for, and before, the moving party’s responsive pleading. [ Note 1.] An extension of time to file a responsive pleading automatically extends the time to file a motion for a more definite statement, unless the Board orders otherwise.

Because a motion for a more definite statement raises issues regarding the complaint of such a nature that the responding party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, generally a party filing such a motion has not filed an answer. Consequently, the time for the parties to conduct their required discovery conference and all subsequent dates are effectively stayed because the pleadings must be complete and issues joined before the conference is held. [ Note 2.]

NOTES:

 1.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Cf. Covidien LP v. Masimo Corp., 109 USPQ2d 1696, 1700 (TTAB 2014) (Board required petitioner to provide a more definite statement of its request for a § 18 modification or restriction to registrant’s registration, failing which, petition to cancel would be dismissed).

 2.   MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245 (August 1, 2007) ("Because disclosure is tied to claims and defenses, … the filing of various pleading motions under Federal Rule 12 will effectively stay the parties’ obligation to conference and, subsequently, make initial disclosures.").

505.03    Failure to Obey Order for More Definite Statement

If the Board, upon motion, issues an order for a more definite statement, and the order is not obeyed within the time specified by the Board, the Board may strike the pleading to which the motion was directed, or make such order as it deems just. [ Note 1.]

NOTES:

 1.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).