Discovery before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) can be deceptively complex. While discovery in Board proceedings borrows from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it’s notably narrower in scope, more rigid in structure, and far less forgiving of overreach. One of the strictest—and most often misunderstood—rules is the numerical limit placed on discovery requests: a hard cap of 75 interrogatories, 75 document requests, and 75 requests for admission. This ceiling applies to each category independently, but it is not as straightforward as it seems.

In this article, we explore how practitioners can stay within these limits while still obtaining the information they need to build a strong case. We also offer advanced TTAB tips for discovery strategy that align with the Board’s procedural preferences and avoid unnecessary objections or sanctions.

Understanding the Origin and Scope of the 75 Request Rule

Under amended TTAB rules that took effect in 2017, discovery limits were imposed to promote efficiency, reduce costs, and discourage fishing expeditions. Each party may serve no more than 75 of each type of discovery request unless granted permission to exceed the limit based on good cause. That means no more than 75 interrogatories, 75 requests for production (RFPs), and 75 requests for admission (RFAs).

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board counts not just each numbered request, but also the subparts that are considered separate inquiries. A single, compound interrogatory with multiple subparts may quickly balloon into several counted requests. For example, if you ask for “all facts, witnesses, and documents supporting your denial,” you may have just used up three interrogatories instead of one.

The rule is not flexible by default. If a party believes more discovery is necessary, they must file a motion showing good cause. However, the Board is generally reluctant to grant such motions unless the case involves particularly complex claims like fraud, functionality, or abandonment supported by extensive use evidence.

How TTAB Counts Discovery Requests—and Why It Matters

To stay compliant, it is essential to understand how the TTAB actually counts each discovery request. Definitions and instructions included in a discovery set are not counted toward the 75-question limit. But once the requests begin, every uniquely answerable part counts. A single interrogatory asking about “each of the following marks” where five marks are listed may be counted as five, depending on the depth and structure of the question.

The Board relies on the same principles as district courts in interpreting interrogatory subparts. If subparts are logically or factually distinct and capable of standing alone, they will be counted as separate interrogatories. Requests for document production and admissions are evaluated similarly.

This becomes even more important in oppositions involving multiple marks or in consolidated proceedings. An uncareful drafter may blow through the 75 limit in just a few pages. And if the responding party believes the limit has been exceeded, they are entitled to raise a general objection and identify the overage, which could halt the discovery process and trigger a motion practice.

Strategic Drafting: Quality Over Quantity

The best TTAB practitioners approach discovery with surgical precision. Rather than casting a wide net, they focus on crafting high-impact questions that can elicit critical facts or admissions with fewer words.

It’s essential to prioritize the core claims and defenses. For instance, in a likelihood of confusion case under Section 2(d), one should focus on questions that clarify channels of trade, similarities in marketing, consumer demographics, and actual confusion evidence. In a nonuse or abandonment case, the focus would shift to commercial activities, specimens, sales records, and advertising efforts.

Avoid boilerplate or catch-all questions. These tend to take up unnecessary space and are more likely to be objected to as vague or burdensome. Instead, tie each request to a specific issue in the case.

Similarly, resist the temptation to repeat the same set of interrogatories for multiple marks in a cumulative fashion. This duplication may artificially inflate your request count and violate the rule without producing any meaningful new information.

Using the TTAB’s Own Guidance to Your Advantage

Among the most valuable TTAB tips published by the Board itself is the reminder to consult Section 414 of the TBMP. This section outlines examples of the types of information typically discoverable in Board proceedings. While not exhaustive, it offers an excellent benchmark for what is considered fair game and what may be overreach.

Another best practice recommended by TTAB insiders is to serve discovery early in the discovery period. By doing so, you preserve time to handle objections, negotiate stipulations, or follow up with additional requests—if you still have any left in your quota. Serving requests late in the period may lead to waived rights or missed deadlines, especially since responses are due within 30 days, and extensions cannot stretch past the close of discovery.

One often-overlooked tactic is to serve your discovery in phases. Begin with 40–50 core requests and wait for responses before using your remaining balance. This allows you to tailor follow-ups with precision, especially if the other party’s responses are evasive or incomplete.

When You Need More: The “Good Cause” Standard

There are limited circumstances where the 75-request limit can be exceeded. A party must file a motion and demonstrate good cause—usually by showing that the complexity or volume of issues in the case makes the default limit inadequate.

However, the burden is high. The Board expects parties to resolve disputes efficiently and discourages expansive discovery. A motion must be filed early enough in the discovery period to allow time for a ruling and compliance. Waiting too long could render the request moot due to the looming close of discovery.

Good cause may exist in cases involving large portfolios of marks, extensive use histories, or disputed facts requiring elaborate substantiation. But simply claiming that your adversary is uncooperative or that more information is needed is unlikely to satisfy the standard.

Beyond the Numbers: Proportionality and Cooperation

In line with the Federal Rules and TTAB policy, all discovery must be proportional to the needs of the case. That means focusing not just on quantity but on relevance, burden, and the value of the information sought.

Overly aggressive discovery often backfires. It may lead to objections, motions to compel, or sanctions. The TTAB favors cooperation and expects parties to make reasonable efforts to resolve disputes without intervention. Discovery that reflects a good-faith effort to exchange useful information is more persuasive than a document dump or a barrage of ambiguous questions.

Parties should also avoid gamesmanship when responding. If you object based on the 75-request limit, be specific. Identify which requests you’re answering and which you’re not. Failure to do so may result in waiver or an unfavorable order from the Board.

Conclusion: Win More with Less

Effective TTAB discovery isn’t about how many questions you ask—it’s about how wisely you use them. The 75-request limit is not a constraint when approached with strategic intent. It is an opportunity to sharpen your focus, streamline your case, and demonstrate procedural professionalism.

By applying the TTAB tips shared in the Board’s own guidance—and drafting discovery with clarity, precision, and purpose—practitioners can elevate their advocacy and avoid unnecessary disputes. In a forum where every filing counts and every deadline matters, smart discovery can set the tone for a winning case.