Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings move quickly, and for many parties, the first real test of procedural discipline begins with the scheduling order. Under TBMP 310.03, the Board sets the framework that governs the entire lifecycle of an opposition or cancellation proceeding. Understanding how these orders work, how deadlines are calculated, and when they can be modified is critical for protecting your brand interests and avoiding unforced errors that can derail an otherwise strong case.

This article takes a technical but practical look at TTAB scheduling orders, with a focus on how TBMP 310.03 shapes case management, strategy, and compliance throughout the proceeding.

What Is a TTAB Scheduling Order and Why It Matters

Once an answer is filed in a TTAB proceeding, the Board issues a scheduling order that outlines all key deadlines. This includes initial disclosures, discovery periods, testimony windows, and briefing schedules. Unlike federal court litigation, TTAB scheduling orders follow a relatively standardized structure, but that does not mean they should be treated casually.

The scheduling order functions as the procedural backbone of the case. Every motion, disclosure, deposition, and evidentiary submission must align with these dates. Missing a deadline can lead to waived rights, exclusion of evidence, or in some cases, default judgment. TBMP 310.03 emphasizes that parties are responsible for tracking and complying with all deadlines, even if settlement discussions are ongoing.

How Deadlines Are Calculated Under TBMP 310.03

TTAB deadlines are calculated based on calendar days, not business days, unless a rule specifically provides otherwise. TBMP 310.03 reminds practitioners that extensions, weekends, and federal holidays all factor into deadline computation under Trademark Rule 2.196.

One of the most common mistakes in TTAB practice is assuming flexibility where none exists. For example, discovery closes at midnight Eastern Time on the deadline date. Testimony periods open and close on fixed dates, and filings submitted even one day late may be rejected. The Board does not routinely excuse late filings absent extraordinary circumstances.

This rigid structure makes early calendaring essential. Many experienced practitioners build internal deadline buffers to ensure compliance even if technical issues arise with ESTTA or internal coordination.

Initial Disclosures and the Early Case Strategy

Under the scheduling order, initial disclosures are typically due thirty days after the opening of the discovery period. TBMP 310.03 underscores that initial disclosures are not optional and are not dependent on discovery requests from the opposing party.

Strategically, initial disclosures provide an early glimpse into how the other side intends to prove its case. They also lock parties into identified witnesses and categories of documents. Failing to properly disclose can limit later testimony or evidentiary submissions, which can be fatal in a TTAB trial that relies heavily on written records.

From a case management perspective, thoughtful initial disclosures set the tone for the entire proceeding. They can signal strength, clarify theories, and sometimes even encourage early resolution.

Discovery Deadlines and the Limits of Flexibility

Discovery in TTAB cases is governed by strict start and end dates laid out in the scheduling order. TBMP 310.03 makes clear that discovery requests must be served early enough to allow responses before the close of discovery. Serving requests on the last day of discovery is ineffective and improper.

The Board expects parties to conduct discovery efficiently and in good faith. While extensions are available, they are not automatic. Consent motions to extend discovery are generally granted when filed before the deadline, but unilateral motions filed after expiration face higher scrutiny.

This structure rewards proactive case management. Parties that wait too long to pursue discovery often find themselves unable to develop the evidentiary record they need for trial.

Modifying the Scheduling Order Through Extensions

TBMP 310.03 allows parties to request extensions of deadlines, but timing and justification matter. The Board distinguishes between consented extensions filed before a deadline and motions filed after a deadline has passed.

Consent motions filed prior to the deadline are typically granted as a matter of course, provided they are reasonable. In contrast, motions filed after a deadline require a showing of excusable neglect, a much higher standard. This distinction reinforces the importance of monitoring deadlines closely and acting early.

Repeated or excessive extension requests may raise red flags. The Board expects cases to move forward efficiently and may deny extensions that appear dilatory or prejudicial.

Testimony Periods and Trial Management

The scheduling order also governs testimony periods, which are central to TTAB trial practice. Each party is assigned specific windows for submitting testimony declarations, depositions, and notices of reliance. TBMP 310.03 reinforces that testimony periods are not interchangeable and cannot be shifted without Board approval.

Missing a testimony deadline can result in the exclusion of all evidence for that party. This is one of the most severe consequences in TTAB practice and one that underscores why scheduling orders must be treated as firm commitments rather than loose guidelines.

Effective case management involves preparing testimony well in advance, coordinating witnesses early, and ensuring that all procedural requirements are met during the assigned window.

The Role of Scheduling Orders in Settlement Discussions

Even when parties are actively discussing settlement, the scheduling order remains in effect unless suspended by the Board. TBMP 310.03 explains that parties may jointly request suspension for settlement discussions, but until the Board grants that request, all deadlines remain enforceable.

This is another common procedural trap. Parties often assume that good faith negotiations pause the case automatically. They do not. Failing to seek a formal suspension can result in missed deadlines and procedural defaults, even while settlement talks appear productive.

Why TBMP 310.03 Is Essential Reading for TTAB Litigants

TBMP 310.03 is more than a technical rule. It reflects the Board’s philosophy of efficiency, predictability, and fairness. The scheduling order is designed to level the playing field by giving both parties clear expectations and equal opportunity to present their cases.

For brand owners, startups, and counsel alike, understanding how to work within this framework is essential. Your brand is everything, and procedural missteps can cost far more than the substantive dispute itself.

If you are navigating a TTAB opposition or cancellation, or anticipating one, working with counsel who understands not just trademark law but TTAB procedure can make all the difference. Consider us your legal consigliere in protecting what you have built.