Standard Protective Order

Effective August 31, 2007, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 2.116(g), the TTAB’s Standard Protective Order is made applicable to every case pending or commenced on or after such date. The parties may substitute a mutually-agreed upon protective order, by stipulation approved by the TTAB; or a party, upon a motion granted by the TTAB, may seek to use an alternative order.

TTAB is updating its Standard Protective order and making it available in this forum for comments and suggestions. Here is a list of the changes:

• States it is automatically imposed in Board proceedings
• Recommends the parties execute for a binding agreement
• Makes it clear that the provisions govern testimony, testimony exhibits, and disclosures.
• Changes from three to two tiers of designation.
• Expressly includes personal health, medical and financial information in designation of Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only
• Adds provision 15) addressing the “Consequences of Unchallenged Overdesignations"

The period for commenting will close March 4, 2016.

View the Standard Protective Order.

Campaign: Standard Protective Order

Don't exclude inside counsel

Inside counsel should presumptively be treated like outside counsel, not like parties. The general legal principle is that inside counsel are lawyer and like outside counsel to be trusted with trade secrets as long as they can show that they act as lawyers and do not have a hybrid business/legal role. The model protective order should reflect that.

Submitted by

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Campaign: Standard Protective Order

Protective Order Review

Is there a short description of why this review is now initiated? Anything specific TTAB considers needs review, general feeling of quasi-sunsetting standing orders? Else?

Submitted by

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Campaign: Standard Protective Order

Protective Orders and Attorneys' Eyes Only (AEO)

Never been a fan of AEO provisions in protective orders unless parties (not counsel) were willing to affirm the information as a trade secret. The categories of "highly confidential" or "commercially sensitive" information are too vague to be subject to any meaningful analysis and the opportunity to over-designate is too great, and the consequences of this can be very real, preventing clients or third-parties from assisting ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Campaign: Standard Protective Order

Standard Protective Order

I have to say that your comment site and procedure are utterly baffling. I have no idea whether I am actually commenting on what I want to comment on. I think that the Standard Protective Order concept is a good one. However, I have several issues based on my experience as both in-house and as outside counsel. If a party to a Board proceeding wants to be represented by in-house counsel that is fine with me. But I ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Campaign: Standard Protective Order

Standard Protective Order

I have to say that your comment site and procedure are utterly baffling. I have no idea whether I am actually commenting on what I want to comment on. I think that the Standard Protective Order concept is a good one. However, I have several issues based on my experience as both in-house and as outside counsel. If a party to a Board proceeding wants to be represented by in-house counsel that is fine with me. But I ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Campaign: Standard Protective Order

Standard Protective Order

I have to say that your comment site and procedure are utterly baffling. I have no idea whether I am actually commenting on what I want to comment on. I think that the Standard Protective Order concept is a good one. However, I have several issues based on my experience as both in-house and as outside counsel. If a party to a Board proceeding wants to be represented by in-house counsel that is fine with me. But I ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Campaign: Standard Protective Order

Standard Protective Order

I have to say that your comment site and procedure are utterly baffling. I have no idea whether I am actually commenting on what I want to comment on. I think that the Standard Protective Order concept is a good one. However, I have several issues based on my experience as both in-house and as outside counsel. If a party to a Board proceeding wants to be represented by in-house counsel that is fine with me. But I ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Campaign: Standard Protective Order

Standard Protective Order

I have to say that your comment site and procedure are utterly baffling. I have no idea whether I am actually commenting on what I want to comment on. I think that the Standard Protective Order concept is a good one. However, I have several issues based on my experience as both in-house and as outside counsel. If a party to a Board proceeding wants to be represented by in-house counsel that is fine with me. But I ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Campaign: Standard Protective Order

Standard Protective Order

I have to say that your comment site and procedure are utterly baffling. I have no idea whether I am actually commenting on what I want to comment on. I think that the Standard Protective Order concept is a good one. However, I have several issues based on my experience as both in-house and as outside counsel. If a party to a Board proceeding wants to be represented by in-house counsel that is fine with me. But I ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Campaign: Standard Protective Order

Standard Protective Order

I have to say that your comment site and procedure are utterly baffling. I have no idea whether I am actually commenting on what I want to comment on. I think that the Standard Protective Order concept is a good one. However, I have several issues based on my experience as both in-house and as outside counsel. If a party to a Board proceeding wants to be represented by in-house counsel that is fine with me. But I ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Campaign: Standard Protective Order

Standard Protective Order

I have to say that your comment site and procedure are utterly baffling. I have no idea whether I am actually commenting on what I want to comment on. I think that the Standard Protective Order concept is a good one. However, I have several issues based on my experience as both in-house and as outside counsel. If a party to a Board proceeding wants to be represented by in-house counsel that is fine with me. But I ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Campaign: Standard Protective Order

Standard Protective Order

I have to say that your comment site and procedure are utterly baffling. I have no idea whether I am actually commenting on what I want to comment on. I think that the Standard Protective Order concept is a good one. However, I have several issues based on my experience as both in-house and as outside counsel. If a party to a Board proceeding wants to be represented by in-house counsel that is fine with me. But I ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active