And Two More Cases...

In addition to the four cases here, there are two more cases citing legal blogs. They are:

1. Collaboration Props. v. Tandberg ASA, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43930, *11 (D. Cal. 2006)

“A proposed amendment to the Patent Reform Act of 2005, which is currently pending before Congress in its original form, would eliminate venue based solely on the availability of personal jurisdiction. See Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2795 (Patent Reform Act of 2005), available at http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/08/patent_reform_a.html.”

2. Priester v. Rich, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36831, *11 n4 (D. Ga. 2006)

“A commentator argues:

First, it imposes a de facto 5-day statute of limitations on prisoner civil rights claims, even though under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, the statute of limitations for civil rights actions is supposed to mirror the state's general personal injury statute of limitations. In Georgia, the relevant statute of limitations should have been two years. Under the Eleventh Circuit's reading of thePLRA, the statute of limitations for prison civil rights suit is 5 days. This disparate treatment of regular civil rights suits vs. prisoner civil rights suit is intolerable, and it is not required or even suggested by the PLRA's text, history, or structure.

Second, the Eleventh Circuit's reading of the PLRA allows potentially different limitations periods in every prison. Federal law, to the extent possible, should be uniform. By allowing each prison to set a different exhaustion deadline, there could potentially be as much disconformity as there are prisons.

http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/woodford_v_ngo/
index.html (site as of 4/3/06).”