直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Factors Other Than Attorney Performance Will Not Enhance Attorney Fee Award

February 08, 2016

Authored and Edited by Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Yieyie Yang, Ph.D.

In Lumen View Technology LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc., Nos. 2015-1275, -1325 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that Lumen View’s case was exceptional and awarding attorneys’ fees, but vacated the district court’s enhancement of the fees awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

The Court rejected the district court’s determination to increase the fee award based on an expedited schedule because it fell within the disfavored “results obtained” rationale. The Court also explained that the district court’s use of enhanced attorneys’ fees to deter future conduct was incorrect because “deterrence may be a consideration when determining whether to award attorney fees,” but “it is not an appropriate consideration in determining the amount of a reasonable attorney fee.” Explaining that factors outside the realm of attorney performance are not accepted to justify an enhancement, the Court vacated the district court’s fee award enhancement that was based on an expedited schedule and deterrence of future conduct. The Court then remanded for further consideration of the attorneys’ fee award.

Tags

remedies

Contacts

Kevin D. Rodkey
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6484
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2016 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

2027 ABA-IPL Section Annual Meeting – IPLSPRING

April 14-15, 2027

Arlington

Conference

Patent Litigation Europe 2027

January 18-20, 2027

Amsterdam

Reception

2026 IPO Education Foundation Awards Dinner

December 15, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

IP Life Sciences Forum 2026

December 13-15, 2026

Coral Gables

Conference

Atlantic Basin Conference on Chemistry 2026

December 6-9, 2026

Rio de Janeiro

Panel Discussion

2026 Advanced Patent Law Institute

December 3-4, 2026

Stanford

Webinar

Data and Market Exclusivity: An Update on China’s New Law and Comparisons to the US and Europe

November 19, 2026

Webinar

Conference

IPBC Asia 2026

November 17-19, 2026

Tokyo

Conference

NAPABA Convention 2026

November 12-14, 2026

Los Angeles

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP