Stambler v. Mastercard: Petition to SCOTUS

Two questions presented on Leon Stambler’s petition for writ of certiorari:

1. Whether covered business method review, an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office to analyze the validity of existing patents, violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.

2. Whether the Federal Circuit’s issuance of Rule 36 judgments without opinions for the disposition of appeals from the Patent and Trademark Office violates 35 U.S.C. § 144’s requirement that the Federal Circuit “shall issue” its “mandate and opinion” for such appeals.

The petition explains:

The first question is substantially similar to that presented in Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, No. 16-712 (June 12, 2017), which has been argued and is awaiting decision by the Court. The second question is identical to that presented by the Petition for writ of certiorari in Celgard, LLC v. Matal (No. 16-1526) (question #2, petition pending).

The case relates to Stambler’s U.S. Patent No. 5,793,302 (authentication system and method). The patent has been asserted in dozens of cases and upheld in several court decisions prior to the PTAB finding it invalid.


17 thoughts on “Stambler v. Mastercard: Petition to SCOTUS

  1. 5

    Deputy AG Rosenstein: Indictment involves 8 criminal counts
    Deputy AG Rosenstein: Indictment involves 8 criminal counts
    22 Mins Ago | 02:16

    A federal grand jury has indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities for alleged interference in the 2016 presidential elections, during which they boosted the candidacy of Donald Trump, special counsel Robert Mueller’s office said Friday.

    The indictment says that a Russian organization called the Internet Research Agency sought to wage “information warfare” against the United States by using fictitious American personas and social media platforms and other Internet-based media.

    Going to be fun watching the Repu k k k e party collapse. How much of American society will they manage to drag down into the sewer with them?

    Parallels with the patent maximalists (mostly glibs and Repu k k kes) and their relentless efforts to turn the patent system into a free-for-all for the worst attorneys in the history of the world are plain to see. Also totally expected.

    1. 5.1

      Your last paragraph is barely a gossamer attempt to be relevant to patent law issues – and is a massive failure.

      Didn’t your previous rants being expunged make it dawn upon you what this forum is for?

      1. 5.1.1

        No gossamer, Bildo. That’s a rope for you to hang yourself with.

        We all know you’d love for these transparent ties to be undiscussable. And we all know why.

        But I’m never going to stop pointing them out. It’s important. And your reactions are, well, part of the picture. Because you are a hypocrite.


          Try to stick to the purpose of this forum.

          Is that too much to ask?
          Too much for you to do?


      1. 5.2.1

        Hardly surprising Gary.

    2. 5.3

      Oh noes russian interbuts bots totally ruined the election! Lol!

      “Going to be fun watching the Repu k k k e party collapse. ”

      When, like 40 years from now?

      The recent memo was bigger news than this. Nobody but you cares about some russian interbut trolls but you and a few leftists.

  2. 4

    PM all new CBMs will soon automatically disappear, thus eliminating the only usable post-grant PTO challenges to patents that can be based on 101

    Get ready because something with bigger teeth is going to replace it soon enough.

    There is no going back, friends.

    1. 4.1

      …because internet tough guy Malcolm says so…

  3. 3

    The patent has been asserted in dozens of cases and upheld in several court decisions


    So what?

  4. 2

    Obviously just another “place holder” cert petition to avoid final judgment awaiting the decision in Oil States.

    Also, as Martin notes, all new CBMs will soon automatically disappear, thus eliminating the only usable post-grant PTO challenges to patents that can be based on 101. [PGRs can only be used during the first few months of issuance of a patent, thus have rarely been used, and I will have to check if they can even consider 101 anyway.]

    1. 2.1

      35 USC 321(b) “Scope [of a PGR] – A petitioner in a post-grant review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent on any ground that could be raised under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 282(b) (relating to invalidity of the patent or any claim).

  5. 1

    Not a chance of cert. CBM is sunsetted and the court has nothing to say about Rule 36 form over substance, which can be achieved with a single sentence.

    OTH, Interesting to see how this huge, barely noted policy change may play out (if at all) in the patent arena.

    link to

    1. 1.1

      What do you see as the connection of the “accused illegality based on violating guidance documents” to be in the patent context?

      I would dare say, in the patent context, it is the government itself that continues to violate its own guidance documents (for example, and to loop back to the “hot topic,” the government under the APA and the Patent Office restrictions on “Official Notice” routinely violates their own “guidance” in the form of hand waving 101 rejections.

      1. 1.1.1

        Funny, when I saw your reference to “guidance document” I initially thought you were quoting someone else referring to the Constitution.

        It’s not that far from the reality of today that indeed this is the perspective of many.

    2. 1.2

      I wonder where the line is for what I assume to be prohibition in effectively delegating the act of lawmaking to the executive.

      Certainly laws can be made by a legislature which confer certain powers to the executive to craft regulations which are consistent with and effect the goals of the law, but I wonder what sorts of cases (in the past) define what constitutes a delegation which invites the executive to craft what are in effect laws themselves, and which I presume would be invalid under separation of powers doctrine.

    3. 1.3

      The cert was likely filed in order to prevent the Fed.Cir. opinion becoming a final order. If it became final before the SC ruled in Oil States, it very well could have been final regardless of what the SC opinion does. By filing the Cert pet. they are able to take advantage of the Oil States opinion should it be favorable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 Notify me of followup comments via e-mail.

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture