B.M. v. H.G.

When counsel stipulate different times for taking action in the Trial Section's preliminary motion phase, the stipulation cannot extend TIME PERIODS 1 through 6 beyond TIME PERIOD 7 or TIME PERIOD 8, and counsel cannot stipulate any change to TIME PERIOD 7 or TIME PERIOD 8 because the order setting times does not authorize it. The Board will approve such a stipulation only as to the permissible period and will deny a request to extend TIME PERIOD 8 so that the Trial Section keeps control over its docket. No prior precedent directly addressed this issue in the text; the opinion explains the Trial Section's then-new standard-form practice for setting times. For the opposing party in an interference, a stipulation with the other side gives no assurance of extra time, because TIME PERIODS 7 and 8 are fixed and no stipulation can push earlier periods past them. For the party seeking more time, the practical result is that the record and all remaining papers were due on the set date (April 29, 1999 here), and an oral extension request made by conference call was denied. The Board cited Rosemount, Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 727 F.2d 1540, 1549-50, 221 USPQ 1, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984), on a tribunal's discretion to manage its process and business, but only with a "Compare" signal. LEGAL TEST OR STANDARD: No multi-factor test. Counsel are expressly authorized to stipulate different times (earlier or later) for TIME PERIODS 1 through 6. Counsel are expressly precluded from stipulating an extension of TIME PERIOD 7. The order setting times does not authorize counsel to stipulate any extension of TIME PERIOD 8. A stipulation cannot extend TIME PERIODS 1 through 6 beyond TIME PERIOD 7 or TIME PERIOD 8. TRIGGERING FACTS: The interference was declared November 25, 1998. Times were set in a January 15, 1999 conference call. TIME PERIOD 8 (filing the record) was set for April 29, 1999. Counsel then stipulated later dates for TIME PERIODS 3, 4 and 5 (the last to May 16, 1999), which put TIME PERIOD 5 after TIME PERIOD 8. The Board approved the stipulation only as to TIME PERIOD 3. An oral extension request was made in a conference call on April 20, 1999, and was denied. KEY QUOTE: "In particular, a stipulation cannot extend TIME PERIODS 1 through 6 beyond TIME PERIOD 7 or TIME PERIOD 8." (Paper 34, p. 11) PRIOR PRECEDENT AFFECTED: No prior precedential or informative decision is directly affected. The Board cited Rosemount, Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 727 F.2d 1540, 221 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1984), with a Compare signal, and the Notice of the Chief Administrative Patent Judge of November 6, 1998, 1217 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Tm. Office 18 (Dec. 1, 1998). PRACTICE TIP: Before stipulating new dates in a Trial Section interference, check that no stipulated date falls after TIME PERIOD 7 or TIME PERIOD 8. If more time is truly needed, do not count on a stipulation or a late request. Raise it early, and assume TIME PERIOD 8 will hold unless the Board changes it.