TTAB filing statistics for 2019 reveal an increase in contested proceedings combined with greater delays in rendering final decisions.
The data, made available by the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, reflects an increase in activity by litigants in both trademark opposition and trademark cancellation proceedings. Our 2018 summary is found here. Relevant 2019 data compiled by the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is below. The numbers in parentheses reflect the rate of change over fiscal year 2018.
Oppositions (+7.1%)
- 2019: 6,955
- 2018: 6,496
Cancellations (+7. 7%)
- 2019: 2,426
- 2018: 2,253
Extensions of time to oppose (+6.7%)
- 2019: 20,502
- 2018: 19,208
Appeals (+3.4%)
- 2019: 3,333
- 2018: 3,223
The increase in filing activity across all proceeding types has apparently placed a greater burden on TTAB staff resources. This fact combined with a greater number of motions being contested has lead to greater delays in rendering decisions:
Number of decisions on motions issued (-7.4%)
- 2019: 1002
- 2018: 1082
Average pendency of decision (+17%)
- 2019: 11.5 weeks
- 2018: 9.4 weeks
No. cases with motions awaiting decision (+46.7%)
- 2019: 242
- 2018: 165
With an increase in filings and contested motion practice, an increase in the number of matters awaiting final decision is not surprising. Yet, the Board has been able to decide more cases in 2019 as compared to 2018 results:
Cases decided (11.3%)
- 2019: 651
- 2018: 585
Most notably, the average pendency of trial decisions (from the time a case is ready for decision until a written decision is rendered) has experienced significant delays:
Pendency of Trial Decisions (+61%)
- 2019: 15.3 weeks
- 2018: 9.5 weeks
The number of appeals and trial proceedings awaiting decision have also increased:
Awaiting decision at end of period (+58.5%)
- 2019: 206
- 2018: 130
Conclusion. While the TTAB’s reported data is quite useful, it does not reflect the underlying causes for the delays in both motion and trial decisions. It could be that an increased volume in initial filings combined with a greater tendency of parties to file contested motions is one of the causes. This is particularly true in situations where parties cannot resolve discovery differences that result in increased (and sometimes unnecessary) motion practice. Given current trends, it may be beneficial for both the Board and parties to reexamine how to improve participation in Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR) as well as other rules designed to streamline proceedings for greater efficiencies.