New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. v. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
497 F.3d 109 (2007)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (NYMEX) (plaintiff) is a physical trading floor where brokers and traders transact for the trading of futures and options contracts for energy commodities. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE) (defendant) operated an internet-based trading market for the trading of physical commodities and derivative contracts. The NYMEX Clearing House created settlement prices that were used to value its customers’ open positions, which were then required to be recorded and disseminated. In order to reach these settlement prices, the NYMEX Clearing House considered a significant amount of data and then disclosed the settlement prices on its website. ICE subscribed to NYMEX’s website and used NYMEX’s settlement prices to clear its customers’ trades. NYMEX sought to enforce a copyright for its database, including its settlement prices. The Copyright Office denied a copyright of NYMEX’s settlement prices but approved a resubmitted copyright for its database. NYMEX brought suit against ICE in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and ICE moved for summary judgment on the copyrightability of NYMEX’s settlement prices. The district court granted ICE’s summary-judgment motion, and NYMEX appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Katzmann, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.