This report examines the facts behind BBK’s so-called “time bubble” argument and why the court found that it did not justify retrying the RAW trademark case. The case is BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Coast Agriculture Inc., No. 2:19-cv-05216-MTL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

On the Record

• BBK failed to show that the court’s evidentiary rulings substantially prejudiced its trial presentation.
• Central Coast Agriculture’s unanimous defense verdict remains intact at the district-court level.
• BBK must pay $3,094,136.57 in attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs under the court’s separate order.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

PHOENIX — A federal judge has rejected BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP’s attempt to reopen its courtroom defeat against Central Coast Agriculture Inc., ruling that the so-called “time bubble” surrounding evidence disclosed after May 2021 did not deprive the owner of RAW rolling-paper trademarks of a fair trial.

In an August 20, 2026 order, U.S. District Judge Michael T. Liburdi denied BBK’s motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. The ruling preserves the jury’s verdict for Central Coast, the California cannabis company behind the Raw Garden brand.

BBK filed the lawsuit in 2019, alleging that Central Coast’s use of “Raw Garden” infringed its RAW marks and was likely to confuse consumers. After the district court resolved major claims at summary judgment, the Ninth Circuitreturned the infringement dispute for trial while affirming BBK’s victory invalidating four Central Coast trademark applications.

Following a two-week trial in October and November 2025, jurors deliberated for less than two hours before finding for Central Coast on the two remaining federal claims—trademark infringement and false designation of origin. BBK then challenged the verdict on evidentiary and expert-testimony grounds.

At the center of BBK’s retrial request was the “time bubble.” Fact discovery closed on May 14, 2021. After remand, the parties agreed that updated disclosures would be limited to financial information and related expert work. BBK later sought to add newer trademark registrations and evidence of changes to Central Coast’s products and packaging, but the court found no good cause to modify the deadline.

BBK argued that enforcing the cutoff forced jurors to decide a 2025 dispute using facts frozen in 2021. Liburdi rejected the premise that he had imposed an automatic ban on everything occurring after the cutoff. He found that it operated as a disclosure boundary, that the court made evidence-specific rulings, and that BBK was permitted to introduce some later evidence. Other disputed material was excluded for reasons including lack of foundation, Rule 403, hearsay, and limits on a witness’s disclosed testimony—not because of the cutoff itself.

BBK’s argument concerning newer trademark registrations also failed because the validity of its RAW marks was not disputed at trial. The jury was instructed that registration could establish validity, and the court took judicial notice of BBK’s ownership and registration of relevant marks. Incontestable status, Liburdi explained, concerns validity—not the separate question of whether consumers were likely to confuse RAW with Raw Garden.

Under Rule 59, an evidentiary error warrants a new trial only when it substantially prejudices a party or produces a miscarriage of justice. Liburdi found neither and rejected BBK’s additional challenges involving competing survey experts.

The financial consequences came in a separate order issued the same day. Liburdi declared the litigation an “exceptional” case under the Lanham Act, citing the weakness of BBK’s infringement proof and what he characterized as an unreasonable litigation campaign. The court pointed to the absence of credible evidence of actual consumer confusion, a prior Rule 11 sanction against BBK’s counsel involving a disputed product photograph, and late-disclosed confusion evidence.

Central Coast requested $5,526,987.50 in attorneys’ fees, but the judge reduced that request to $2,559,745.61 after finding that the California lawyers’ rates exceeded reasonable rates for the Arizona forum and making other billing adjustments. He awarded the requested $534,390.96 in non-taxable costs in full.

That produces a combined court-ordered obligation of $3,094,136.57. There was no monetary jury award for the judge to reduce—the jury returned a defense verdict. The reduction applied to Central Coast’s post-trial fee request. BBK was ordered to pay the fees and costs into Goodwin Procter LLP’s trust account within 28 days and file notice of compliance within one day after payment.

About the Author

Samuel López is a Senior Legal Analyst, investigative journalist, and legal researcher with more than two decades of experience working with civil litigation and complex legal controversies. His analysis of pleadings, evidentiary disputes, trial records, and appellate decisions enables him to translate dense court rulings into precise, fact-driven reporting.

Go Beyond the Headlines

If this report gave you a clearer view of the case, join readers who rely on USA Herald for exclusive investigations, breaking legal developments, and sharp analysis of the stories shaping the nation. Subscribe to the USA Herald newsletter and receive our latest reporting directly.

Follow USA Herald on X at @RealUSAHerald.