Trademark litigation before the United States Patent and Trademark Office doesn’t always need to be a procedural gauntlet. In fact, one of the most overlooked strategies at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) is knowing when to fight and when to stipulate. While many practitioners prepare for a drawn-out discovery battle or an aggressive appeal, TTAB rules and practice reveal a surprising truth: the Board not only allows procedural shortcuts—it often encourages them.

Understanding how to use stipulations strategically can save your client time, money, and frustration. The right agreements can narrow issues, reduce filings, and even eliminate the need for testimony. But this doesn’t mean stipulations are always appropriate. Knowing when to push forward and when to streamline is a mark of an experienced advocate.

The Board’s View: Efficiency and Fairness

At its core, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is a specialized adjudicative body focused solely on rights to federal registration. It does not decide questions of infringement or award monetary damages. As such, its procedural rules are designed with efficiency and fairness in mind. Unlike federal court, TTAB proceedings are structured to resolve factual disputes about registrability quickly and cleanly.

This focus on efficiency is why TTAB tips from judges and Interlocutory Attorneys consistently encourage parties to find areas of agreement early on. Whether it’s through procedural stipulations or full-on participation in Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR), the Board rewards parties who simplify rather than complicate their cases.

Stipulations: Not a Sign of Weakness

Some attorneys view stipulating to procedures as a concession. In TTAB proceedings, that mindset can be costly. Procedural stipulations are not admissions of fault or liability; rather, they are tools to eliminate unnecessary friction. A stipulation to accept a discovery response a few days late, for example, can preserve goodwill and reduce the need for avoidable motions. More importantly, stipulations can tailor the litigation process to better fit the parties’ needs.

Common stipulations encouraged by the Board include extending deadlines, limiting discovery to specific topics, agreeing to admit specific documents, and even submitting summary judgment materials as trial evidence. These aren’t loopholes—they’re formal, enforceable agreements recognized by the TTAB as legitimate case management tools.

Strategic Use of Accelerated Case Resolution

One of the most powerful forms of procedural stipulation endorsed by the TTAB is ACR. While not appropriate in every case, ACR allows the parties to bypass the typical trial structure in favor of a faster, more flexible approach. Under ACR, parties agree to submit evidence and arguments on a stipulated record, giving the Board the ability to make findings of fact as it would after a full trial.

The TTAB strongly recommends that parties consider ACR early in the case—ideally during the discovery conference. That said, parties can agree to ACR at virtually any stage, including after filing cross-motions for summary judgment. In these situations, the Board may accept the summary judgment record as the final record, streamlining the path to a decision.

ACR is particularly useful in cases where the facts are largely undisputed or the only issue is one of law. For example, abandonment and nonuse cases are often ripe for resolution through ACR. By stipulating to essential facts and submitting briefs with supporting evidence, parties can obtain a decision in a fraction of the time it takes to conduct a full trial.

When Stipulating Saves the Case

There are situations where a carefully crafted stipulation can rescue a case from collapse. A common example involves evidence. Suppose a party fails to properly introduce a pleaded registration or misses a deadline to serve discovery responses. In these instances, the opposing party has every right to object or move to strike—but doing so may not always serve their client’s long-term interests.

Rather than weaponizing procedural missteps, some parties choose to stipulate to allow the evidence or responses into the record, avoiding motion practice and letting the case move forward on its merits. The Board frequently applauds this kind of cooperation and may view it favorably in future scheduling or sanction decisions.

Similarly, parties sometimes enter stipulations to correct technical defects in pleadings or filings. If an opposition was filed under the wrong ground or with an incorrect identification of goods, a stipulation to amend the pleading can avoid needless delays. In each instance, the key is mutual agreement and clarity on the record.

When to Fight: Drawing the Line

Of course, not every motion or procedural issue should be resolved through a stipulation. There are cases where aggressive motion practice is necessary—particularly when the opposing party is evasive, uncooperative, or attempting to sandbag key evidence. In such cases, moving to compel discovery, strike insufficient pleadings, or oppose summary judgment may be the only responsible course of action.

Likewise, stipulating to facts without a firm evidentiary foundation can be dangerous. If the record is unclear or disputed, or if stipulating would limit your ability to rebut key assertions, it may be better to preserve your arguments for the trial phase.

Fighting also becomes necessary when the opposing party is attempting to exploit stipulations for delay or leverage. For instance, if multiple extensions have been granted for settlement discussions with no meaningful progress, it may be time to oppose further delays and press for trial. The TTAB allows generous accommodations for settlement—but not at the expense of finality.

A Culture of Cooperation

Despite being an adversarial forum, the TTAB encourages a culture of cooperation. Practitioners who embrace this culture often find themselves with smoother cases, fewer disputes, and better outcomes. That doesn’t mean becoming passive or yielding at every turn—it means being strategic, realistic, and focused on resolving issues efficiently.

The most successful TTAB litigators understand that the fight should be about registrability—not procedural skirmishes. They know how to assert their client’s position firmly while still engaging in good-faith discussions about case management, timing, and the record.

Final Thoughts

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board offers practitioners many tools to manage cases with flexibility and efficiency. Among the most valuable of these are procedural stipulations and Accelerated Case Resolution. By applying these TTAB tips thoughtfully, attorneys can reduce costs, simplify litigation, and deliver better results for their clients.

Knowing when to fight and when to stipulate isn’t just a matter of tactics—it’s a reflection of experience. And in TTAB practice, experience often speaks the loudest not through motions and briefs, but through strategic restraint and procedural wisdom.