Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc.
American legal case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., 650 F.3d 876 (2d Cir. 2011), was a case decided in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where the Second Circuit, reversing the decision[1] of the US District Court below it, found that the claims of three major financial investment firms (Barclays Investment Bank, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch) against an internet subscription stock news service (theflyonthewall.com) for "Hot-news" Misappropriation under state common law doctrine could not stand, as they were pre-empted by several sections of the Federal Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 106,[2] 17 U.S.C. § 102,[3] and 17 U.S.C. § 103[4]).[5]
Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc. | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Full case name | Barclays Capital Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., and Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc. |
Argued | August 6, 2010 |
Decided | June 20, 2011 |
Citation(s) | 650 F.3d 876 |
Case history | |
Prior history | 700 F. Supp. 2d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Rosemary S. Pooler, Reena Raggi, Robert D. Sack |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Sack |
Concurrence | Raggi |
Laws applied | |
Copyright Act | |
Keywords | |
Hot News, Misappropriation, Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition |
The case was significant because the Second Circuit redefined elements of the "Hot-news" Misappropriation tort, breaking with earlier Second Circuit precedent by holding that such precedent was not binding, but merely obiter dicta.[5] According to some legal commentators, the decision would have the effect of making it more difficult for future plaintiffs to bring claims under the hot-news misappropriation doctrine, at least in the Second Circuit.[6]