直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Supplemental Expert Reports Cannot Be Submitted Via a Notice of Reliance

August 01, 2014

Authored and Edited by Morgan E. Smith

The TTAB recently clarified its procedures for making evidence of record through notices of reliance. After the close of its testimony period, Applicant sought to reopen the period in order to file an additional notice of reliance. The exhibits attached to this notice of reliance included a “Supplemental Expert Report” and the documents referenced in the report. The Board excluded the Supplemental Expert Report because it was not proper subject matter for introduction via a notice of reliance. The Board then considered the possibility that the report was admissible because the parties had so stipulated. The report was not admissible on this basis because the parties’ stipulations covered the expert’s initial report, but did not address the admissibility of any additional expert reports, affidavits, or declaration testimony. The report also did not qualify as proper supplementation under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because, by Applicant’s own admission, it contained additional opinions designed to rebut Opposer’s expert report, rather than correct any inaccuracies in Applicant’s initial report. The documents referenced in the “Supplemental Expert Report” were admissible because they were printed publications and constituted proper subject matter for a notice of reliance. The Board struck the “Supplemental Expert Report” and reminded the Applicant that it could have avoided this problem altogether had it simply taken the expert’s deposition during its testimony period.

Tags

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)

Contacts

Morgan E. Smith
Partner
Palo Alto, CA
+1 650 849 6665
Email

Copyright © 2014 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

2027 ABA-IPL Section Annual Meeting – IPLSPRING

April 14-15, 2027

Arlington

Reception

2026 IPO Education Foundation Awards Dinner

December 15, 2026

Washington, DC

Panel Discussion

2026 Advanced Patent Law Institute

December 3-4, 2026

Stanford

Webinar

Data and Market Exclusivity: An Update on China’s New Law and Comparisons to the US and Europe

November 19, 2026

Webinar

Conference

IPBC Asia 2026

November 17-19, 2026

Tokyo

Charitable

2026 ALYN Hospital Wheels of Love Ride

November 8-12, 2026

Northern District

Conference

2026 ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference

November 2-4, 2026

Huntington Beach

Conference

Life Sciences Patent Network North America Fall 2026

November 2-3, 2026

San Francisco

Conference

2026 AIPLA Annual Meeting

October 29-31, 2026

Washington, DC

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP