Last call for comments on TTAB rule changes

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Last call for comments on TTAB rule changes

Gerard Rogers, Chief Administrative Trademark Judge at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, gave an update on the Board’s proposed rule changes yesterday during the USPTO Users’ Meeting.

Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (which was published in April) are due June 3. Rogers said there were many reasons for considering the first rule changes to the TTAB since 2007, including case law, federal rule changes and technological advantages.

“The decision last year by the Supreme Court in B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries has become involved in the conversation since our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” noted Rogers. “But I can assure you it was neither a reason for proposing it nor is it a reason for not proposing it. I know some of the comments we have received said maybe we shouldn’t be involved in this rulemaking after the Supreme Court ruling. We don’t see it that way. It was in the works already.”

One of the biggest focuses of the rule changes is to make the TTAB filing completely electronic. “If the system is down, you can still file on paper but it needs a petition to the Director attached,” said Rogers. “So the lesson there is to file early, and that way you won’t run up against such issues.” Rogers urged any registrants that want to comment on the notice to act fast. “What will ultimately be in the Notice of Final Rulemaking may change some so if you do want to comment you have got a week and a half,” he said. The final rules package is expected to be published in September.

The USPTO is scheduled to issue a report reviewing the comments received on June 24. That day is also the effective date of the Board’s new Standard Protective Order. It will apply to all pending cases with some limited exceptions.  Mary Boney Denison, Commissioner for Trademarks at the USPTO also gave an update on several initiatives, including updating all the Office’s computer systems, TM5, a new online payment tool, outreach, the IP attaché program and the fees proposal. On the latter point, Denison said the USPTO is “trying to drive behavior away from paper” and that there should be a proposal in the Federal Register next month. She noted that about 84% of filing is done ­electronically now. Denison reported that filing this year is up 8% to 9%. “We are expecting filings to keep going,” she said.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

AI, cybersecurity and data practice group will provide clients with legal guidance around AI alongside a 'deep technical foundation’ in IP
Lawyers at Vondst and Biopatents say a ruling concerning the protected status of trade secrets could see the UPC flooded with requests to prevent access to confidential information
Sharad Vadehra of Kan & Krishme discusses why older IP firms still have an edge over up-and-coming boutiques and how the firm is using AI to provide quick and cost-effective service
Lawyers at Appleyard Lees share how they picked apart a plant breeder’s infringement claims concerning the ‘Tango’ mandarin
A further decision on long-arm status, and a new hire for Pentarc in Germany from Taylor Wessing were also among top developments
The US decision marks a rare grant of a request under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in a patent case
Stobbs has applied to strike out a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
With trademark volumes surging, trademark teams need to think beyond traditional clearance searches, towards a continuous, intelligence-led workflow, says Meghan Medeiros of Corsearch
Brazilian in-house counsel say law firms’ technology investments have not translated into tangible benefits, meaning tech use is a minor factor when selecting advisers
A lack of comfort among some salaried partners shows why law firms must actively foster inclusion, not merely focus on diversity mandates
Gift this article