In the realm of trademark litigation, few forums are as procedurally nuanced and strategically demanding as the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). For attorneys and brand owners alike, navigating a TTAB proceeding can be a resource-intensive process. But there is a powerful, underutilized mechanism that offers the potential to simplify, shorten, and streamline the path to resolution: Accelerated Case Resolution, or ACR.
Despite being available for years, ACR remains underused and often misunderstood. Informed by the TTAB’s official guidance—including the “TTAB Tips July 2020” document authored by Administrative Trademark Judge Christen English and Interlocutory Attorney Mary Beth Myles—this article demystifies ACR, explaining what it is, why it matters, and how you can effectively leverage it to resolve your trademark disputes before the Board.
What Is Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR)?
Accelerated Case Resolution is a flexible and efficient alternative to a traditional TTAB trial. Unlike typical litigation, which can extend over months (or even years) and involve extensive discovery, briefing, and procedural maneuvering, ACR offers a shortcut. It allows parties to submit their cases for decision on a more limited and often less formal record.
The goal is to approximate a bench trial based on summary judgment principles, allowing the Board to decide the matter using the evidence and arguments provided by the parties—without the need for a full-scale trial. But what sets ACR apart from standard summary judgment is its flexibility: under ACR, the TTAB can resolve factual disputes, making credibility assessments and findings that would otherwise preclude a summary judgment ruling.
ACR is not a one-size-fits-all process. The structure of each ACR case is shaped by the parties themselves. They may choose to stipulate to facts, limit discovery, submit briefs with attached evidence, or agree to specific evidentiary rules. This makes ACR a collaborative process where efficiency and mutual consent are central.
Why Accelerated Case Resolution Is Worth Considering
For parties involved in proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, ACR can offer substantial advantages. First and foremost is the reduction in time and cost. Traditional TTAB proceedings can be lengthy, often lasting over a year. ACR compresses that timeline significantly. According to TTAB tips and statistics referenced by the Board itself, decisions in ACR cases are issued faster because the record is typically simpler and more focused.
Second, ACR allows for greater predictability. By stipulating to facts and limiting evidentiary disputes, parties can streamline the case to its essential legal issues. This enables more targeted arguments and gives the Board a cleaner record to review.
Finally, ACR promotes settlement. Even if parties don’t ultimately resolve the case amicably, the collaborative nature of ACR discussions can open the door to compromise or at least narrow the issues in dispute.
When to Consider ACR: Timing and Case Selection
One of the key TTAB tips emphasized in the July 2020 update is that the earlier parties explore ACR, the better. Ideally, ACR should be discussed during the mandatory discovery conference, which occurs at the outset of an inter partes proceeding. This is when parties outline the scope of discovery, procedural preferences, and settlement potential. Raising the possibility of ACR at this stage allows parties to build their case around a more streamlined path from the start.
Even if ACR is not adopted at the outset, parties should revisit the option after initial disclosures, early discovery responses, or any point where the issues begin to crystallize. The Board encourages this iterative approach and will often assist in guiding the parties through their options.
That said, not every case is ideal for ACR. The best candidates tend to involve relatively straightforward factual and legal disputes. For example, oppositions or cancellations based on nonuse, abandonment, or descriptiveness are particularly well-suited to ACR because they often hinge on documentary evidence rather than subjective testimony. If credibility or complex factual disputes are central, traditional trial may still be necessary.
Crafting a Successful ACR Strategy: Key Considerations
Accelerated Case Resolution works best when both parties are willing to collaborate on shaping the process. This begins with a strong stipulation—an agreement that outlines the contours of the ACR procedure. The stipulation should specify how evidence will be submitted, whether discovery will be waived or limited, what legal issues will be decided, and how the TTAB should treat the record.
The TTAB tips emphasize that the parties can be creative here. They might agree to rely solely on summary judgment evidence as the trial record. Alternatively, they may choose to waive oral testimony and submit briefs with attached exhibits, treating them as their full presentation of the case. The Board is receptive to nearly any structure the parties propose, provided it is clear and consistent with TTAB rules.
One of the most powerful features of ACR is the ability of the TTAB to resolve factual disputes. This allows parties to present their cases even when genuine issues of material fact exist—something that would derail a summary judgment motion under traditional rules. But for this to work, the parties must expressly agree that the Board has authority to resolve those disputes.
It is also important to address the scope of legal arguments and evidentiary objections. Parties may stipulate to waive certain objections, agree on admissibility, or limit briefing lengths. These procedural agreements not only speed up the case but also reduce the risk of surprises during Board review.
Practical TTAB Tips for Using ACR Effectively
The July 2020 TTAB tips provide clear and practical guidance for navigating the ACR process. Among the most important takeaways is the value of Board involvement. If the parties are considering ACR, they should request a telephone conference with the assigned Interlocutory Attorney. The Board can help the parties refine their stipulations, resolve preliminary disputes, and ensure that their proposed structure aligns with TTAB procedures.
Another useful tip is that even if parties do not adopt ACR, they can still implement many ACR-style efficiencies. For example, parties might agree to limit discovery, stipulate to facts, or consolidate trial and briefing periods. These partial efficiencies can make a significant difference in the pace and clarity of the proceeding.
Importantly, ACR is not limited to the early stages of litigation. It can also be invoked after summary judgment motions have been filed. In that context, the parties can stipulate that the Board may treat the summary judgment record as the trial record and proceed to final decision, even if factual disputes remain. This provides a graceful off-ramp from protracted motion practice and a route to finality.
Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them
As powerful as ACR can be, it is not without its challenges. One common pitfall is lack of clarity in the parties’ stipulation. Ambiguity about how evidence should be treated, which facts are agreed upon, or what standard the Board should apply can lead to confusion, delay, or even denial of the ACR request. It’s critical that parties draft detailed and unambiguous agreements, ideally with the Board’s input.
Another issue is failing to fully consider the evidentiary record. Because ACR often limits discovery and replaces traditional testimony with documentary evidence, it’s essential that the submitted materials are comprehensive and persuasive. Parties should not assume that the Board will “fill in the gaps.” In an ACR proceeding, what you put in the record is what the Board will use to decide the case.
Lastly, parties should avoid approaching ACR as a shortcut without preparation. While it can save time and money, ACR still requires strong advocacy, coherent legal arguments, and a well-developed record. ACR should be seen not as an escape hatch but as a strategic choice for efficiently resolving disputes.
Real-World Impact: How ACR Shapes Outcomes
ACR has increasingly become a preferred mechanism in certain types of TTAB litigation. In recent years, the Board has issued precedent-setting decisions through ACR that underscore its value. These cases have addressed claims like abandonment, descriptiveness, and genericness—disputes where a focused record and defined legal framework made ACR the ideal format.
Moreover, the TTAB’s willingness to issue decisions based on stipulations and documentary evidence illustrates a broader shift toward efficiency. As the trademark docket grows and practitioners demand faster resolutions, ACR is likely to become an even more vital part of the TTAB landscape.
Conclusion: ACR as a Key Tool in Your TTAB Strategy
For attorneys handling trademark disputes before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, ACR represents a potent strategic option. It offers speed, clarity, and control—qualities often elusive in traditional litigation. But to use ACR effectively, parties must understand its mechanics, invest in careful planning, and collaborate to craft a tailored approach.
The TTAB tips shared in the July 2020 guide highlight the Board’s commitment to promoting efficiency and flexibility through tools like ACR. By leveraging this guidance, practitioners can craft compelling and concise cases that get to the heart of the matter—and do so far more quickly than a full-blown trial might allow.
As trademark enforcement continues to evolve, and as the demands on the TTAB increase, Accelerated Case Resolution may well become the future of efficient, effective trademark litigation.