Trademark litigation before the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) is often perceived as a long, detail-heavy process marked by procedural skirmishes and expensive discovery battles. But not every trademark dispute has to play out like a full-blown courtroom drama. For businesses and attorneys looking to resolve their TTAB cases more efficiently, Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR) offers a powerful alternative that is often overlooked.

Introduced as a flexible and voluntary option, ACR allows parties to bypass the full trial process while still obtaining a final, binding decision from the Board. In an era where legal teams are being asked to do more with less, understanding how to properly use ACR can save time, reduce costs, and deliver faster outcomes—all without compromising the strength of a client’s case.

What Is Accelerated Case Resolution?

Accelerated Case Resolution is the TTAB’s version of a streamlined bench trial. It enables both parties to agree to a shortened path to a final decision by stipulating to certain facts, evidence, or procedural modifications. Unlike summary judgment, ACR allows the Board to resolve genuine disputes of material fact without the “no genuine issue” requirement. This means you can still prevail even if the facts are contested—so long as the parties have agreed that the Board can make factual findings based on the record presented.

Importantly, ACR is not a separate set of rules or a formal program. Rather, it is a flexible framework under the TTAB’s existing authority. As emphasized in multiple TTAB Tips and sections of the TBMP (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure), the Board is consistently supportive of parties that work together to streamline their cases—whether that means limiting discovery, stipulating to certain facts, or skipping oral testimony in favor of written evidence.

Why More Practitioners Should Consider ACR

ACR is ideal for cases where the legal issues are clear-cut or the facts are not in heavy dispute. For example, disputes involving abandonment, nonuse, or priority can often be resolved quickly when both sides agree on the core documents or facts. Even when disagreements exist, ACR allows both parties to present their arguments through briefs and exhibits, with the understanding that the Board will issue a final decision just as it would after a full trial.

There is a growing recognition among trademark attorneys that many TTAB cases—especially between small businesses or closely aligned parties—can be resolved through ACR rather than traditional trial. Yet, many practitioners still overlook ACR because they associate it with summary judgment or mistakenly believe it limits their ability to make a persuasive case.

In reality, ACR does not mean giving up your client’s right to argue or prove their claims. Instead, it means agreeing to procedural efficiencies that allow both parties to skip unnecessary formalities and get straight to the heart of the dispute.

How ACR Works in Practice

The process begins with the parties mutually agreeing to use ACR. This discussion typically happens during or shortly after the mandatory discovery conference, which is the first opportunity for both sides to align on logistics and scope. If both parties are open to ACR, they may agree to stipulations such as submitting briefs with attached evidence, waiving the need for oral testimony, or using declarations instead of depositions.

The TTAB strongly encourages early ACR discussions. According to the July 2020 TTAB Tips, early adoption of ACR yields the greatest efficiency and allows the Board to issue a decision more quickly. However, even if parties don’t agree to ACR at the outset, they can revisit the option later in the case—such as after the close of discovery or during pretrial disclosures. In fact, some parties use ACR after cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the Board to treat the existing record as a final trial submission.

Once both parties file their stipulated record and final briefs, the Board considers the case ready for decision. No further procedural steps are required. And unlike with summary judgment, there’s no need to argue that “no genuine dispute of material fact exists”—which often derails otherwise strong motions.

When ACR Makes Sense (and When It Doesn’t)

ACR is especially effective in situations where the dispute turns on documentary evidence, legal interpretation, or issues such as likelihood of confusion, descriptiveness, or abandonment. For example, if the core disagreement is whether a mark was in use on a particular date, and both sides have documents to support their claims, there’s little reason to engage in extended oral testimony or motion practice. The parties can simply agree to submit the evidence and allow the Board to decide.

On the other hand, ACR may not be ideal in heavily fact-intensive disputes involving multiple witnesses, complex surveys, or third-party testimony. If the case is likely to be won or lost based on credibility assessments made during cross-examination, the full trial process may still be the better route.

Still, for many TTAB litigants, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, the ability to save months—or even years—of litigation time can be game-changing. Moreover, it aligns with client expectations about managing legal spend without compromising the outcome.

Strategic Tips from the TTAB

Recent TTAB Tips emphasize the importance of proactive communication when pursuing ACR. Practitioners are encouraged to call the assigned Interlocutory Attorney or request a conference to iron out details. The Board is open to customizing procedural schedules to fit each ACR stipulation, and it welcomes creative approaches that reduce burdens on all parties.

Additionally, stipulations under ACR can include agreements to limit discovery, reduce the number of briefs or pages, or accept specific types of evidence (such as declarations or internet printouts). This makes ACR a practical choice even when the parties don’t agree on everything.

The Board also clarified that parties are not required to use ACR in full. Hybrid approaches are acceptable. For instance, parties might go through traditional discovery but agree to forego oral hearings and rely on written briefs with attached evidence. In many ways, this flexibility is what makes ACR such an attractive—but underutilized—tool.

Final Thoughts

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is designed to offer a specialized, streamlined forum for trademark disputes. But too often, parties default to the full litigation route without considering the smarter, faster alternative that ACR represents. By embracing the TTAB’s openness to procedural innovation, attorneys can resolve disputes on the merits while saving significant time and resources.

For those looking to practice more efficiently before the Board, ACR is not just permitted—it’s encouraged. And for the right case, it can make the difference between a long, expensive legal battle and a prompt, strategic win.