Cento Group, S.P.A. v. OroAmerica, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• fact that seven witnesses resided in California and only one resided in New York was factor in transferring case to California
• “The availability of compulsory process favors transfer” to California where most of the witnesses (excluding foreign witnesses) resided in California
• neither “forum’s familiarity or unfamiliarity with governing law justified] transfer” where plaintiff brought a federal patent claim, since “presumably both courts in New York and California are equally likely to be familiar with federal patent law.”
• “Cento has made only one claim based on federal patent law, and presumably both courts in New York and California are equally likely to be familiar with federal patent law.”
• “Cento has made only one claim based on federal patent law, and presumably both courts in New York and California are equally likely to be familiar with federal patent law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).