SSJR won a dismissal of a trademark opposition with prejudice filed against its client where the Opposer had moved to re-open discovery based on allegedly on-going settlement discussions. The Opposer had failed to take testimony during the discovery period or file a brief. On behalf of its client, SSJR opposed the motion citing that settlement talks had ended long before the close of discovery. SSJR also sought dismissal of the opposition with prejudice. The TTAB found that the possibility of a settlement did not justify the Opposer’s failure to complete discovery or take testimony and that Opposer’s motion was a belated attempt to make up for its inaction. Finding that the Opposer’s conduct did not meet the “excusable neglect” standard, the TTAB denied the Opposer’s motion to re-open discovery. As the Opposer had not taken testimony or made any other evidence of record in the opposition, the TTAB dismissed the opposition with prejudice, in favor of SSJR’s client.