UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mailed: August 1, 2013
`
`Opposition No. 91209837
`
`Eli Lilly and Company
`
`
`
`v.
`
`H. Lundbeck A/S
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Andrew P. Baxley, Interlocutory Attorney:
`
`
`On July 17, 2013, opposer filed a second consented
`
`motion to suspend for settlement negotiations in this case.
`
`As an initial matter, the Board notes that the
`
`consented motion to suspend for settlement negotiations
`
`that opposer filed on May 15, 2013, and the Board granted
`
`on that day, should have been denied. The Board generally
`
`does not grant consented motions to suspend filed after the
`
`answer and before the discovery conference deadline without
`
`a sufficient showing of good cause. TBMP Section 510.03(a)
`
`(3d ed. rev. 2 2013). The mere desire to engage in
`
`settlement discussions generally does not constitute good
`
`cause for a suspension of the deadline for the discovery
`
`conference; rather, the discovery conference itself
`
`provides the parties an opportunity to discuss settlement.
`
`See Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Chaveriat, 87 USPQ2d
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91209837
`
`
`1767, 1767 n.1 (TTAB 2008); Miscellaneous Changes to
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Rules, 72 Fed. Reg. 42242,
`
`42245 (August 1, 2007); id. Such motion was filed between
`
`the filing of applicant’s answer and the deadline for the
`
`parties’ mandatory discovery conference and did not include
`
`a showing of good cause for the suspension sought. As
`
`such, there was no basis for varying from the Board’s
`
`general practice in this case.
`
`Moreover, the proposed schedule set forth in that
`
`motion is incorrect because the first date set forth
`
`therein was not the next deadline in the case. That is,
`
`the first date set forth in the proposed schedule in that
`
`motion is the deadline for expert disclosures, when the
`
`next deadline in the case was the deadline for the
`
`discovery conference.1 However, the Board finds that
`
`because more than two months have passed since the issuance
`
`of that order, retroactively denying the May 15, 2013
`
`motion to suspend and vacating the entire schedule adopted
`
`by way of that order would be impractical.
`
`Rather, the deadline for the parties’ discovery
`
`conference has passed. If the parties have not held their
`
`discovery conference, they should do so immediately. The
`
`1 The Board’s electronic form consented motions to extend and
`suspend do not permit a schedule in which the first reset date is
`the deadline for the discovery conference.
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91209837
`
`
`schedule adopted by the May 15, 2013 order is otherwise
`
`modified infra.
`
`
`
`Turnnig to the second consented motion to suspend for
`
`settlement negotiations, that motion indicates that the
`
`parties still have not held their discovery conference and
`
`includes no showing of good cause for the suspension
`
`sought. In addition, the proposed schedule in that motion
`
`is incorrect because the first date in that schedule is the
`
`deadline for expert disclosures. Accordingly, the second
`
`consented motion to suspend is denied.
`
`The discovery period is open. The schedule set forth
`
`in the May 15, 2013 order is modified as follows.
`
`Initial Disclosures Due
`Expert Disclosures Due
`Discovery Closes
`Plaintiff's Pretrial Disclosures Due
`Plaintiff's 30-day Trial Period Ends
`Defendant's Pretrial Disclosures Due
`Defendant's 30-day Trial Period Ends
`Plaintiff's Rebuttal Disclosures Due
`Plaintiff's 15-day Rebuttal Period Ends
`
`8/27/2013
`12/25/2013
`1/24/2014
`3/10/2014
`4/24/2014
`5/9/2014
`6/23/2014
`7/8/2014
`8/7/2014
`
`
`
`
`In each instance, a copy of the transcript of
`
`testimony, together with copies of documentary exhibits,
`
`must be served on the adverse party within thirty days
`
`after completion of the taking of testimony. Trademark
`
`Rule 2.l25.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91209837
`
`
`
`
`Briefs shall be filed in accordance with Trademark
`
`Rules 2.128(a) and (b). An oral hearing will be set only
`
`upon request filed as provided by Trademark Rule 2.l29.
`
`
`
`If either of the parties or their attorneys should
`
`have a change of address, the Board should be so informed
`
`promptly.
`
`
`
` 4
