if it's already the law that the amount of fees is separate from the question of whether he should be awarded at all this is the reason three separate consistent with the court's precedent providing additional exposition of the law regarding fees and feel for it when monetary stakes are small or when if the defendant rather than a plaintiff that is seeking  grounded on the lower courts of balding experience this is of course because like cases should be treated and decided alike defendants are in a similar sort of position as each other because they have no possibility of recovery cleaner but that that you have a spectrum of a toss up states that a party winds up getting a big recovery maybe an injunction versus on the other hand a frivolous case and no recovery is on that other side of the of the spectrum it is a frivolous case that the defendant won and of course the defendant gets no recovery other similarity of the underlying two stores at issue here and of course the fee petition and appeal it makes some sense for the court to courts language and rather than getting getting too far into into the specifics it will be up to the district court to look at it and determin for example if the if the parties were engaged in settlement discussions repeating early warning the other side that what is happening is that we have an increasing amount of attorney fees being added in this last relevant here because no one needs to be deterred from infringing a copyright act was no copyright and the claim that there was was frivolous so that leaves the last point here which is motivation this court should be addressed motivation and objective way just as it did in the eagle services case there they said it is apparent that the suit was filed in order to cramp the style of a competitor and perhaps warrant on any other carefully and thoughtfully argues that the district court failed to apply the proper law in reviewing the district court decision the district court explained the a political law at least seven that i just must give consideration to all other relevant circumstances that there is a strong presumption in favor of awarding to a prevailing defendant that the healthy reason behind that presumption to ensure that a defendant does not abandon a meritorious defense and finally the court noted that the court of appeals has not addressed whether the presumption is still valid in light of the u s supreme court's two thousand and sixteen decision in court saying which seemed to call question such presumption then the district court went on to apply all of that law and gave at least six reasons why in this case the application of the law supported its conclusion that embrace on this is not held to attorneys first that apollonius is copyright claims were not actually litigated none of the motions overdye curtseying and others embraced on this is asking that instead this court essentially completely remove the district court's discretion and set forth a bright line rule that a frivolous claim requires awarding attorney fees at best even if the district court must use discretion case by case global analysis there was much discussion in the briefs and in attorney hansen's argument about the propriety of the district court here weighing the fact that the copyright claims were not mitigated or were not  the fact that the that a party may be involved in minor copyright litigation does not make them any less entitle to c s than a party involved in protracted copyright litigation does that lead to the conclusion that the role the copyright claims played in the litigation here could not have been a factor in the district court decision budget cinema called it improper in that case but that did not result in and analyzing the claim for attorneys and that is the policy behind the presumption of awarding fees to prevailing defendants it's significant that in this case the defendant are all that matters and are you know far more important and can essentially do away with the factors of motivation and determine when in fact the only factor that party position now again that means giving it more weight not giving it a weight not saying ok well we start with subjective reasonableness and if and if the party loses on that then we don't need to go any further none of the case law cited in the briefs or that i believe is is available here says that just because you have multiple factors and one have been given more weight doesn't mean that the other factors can outweigh that and that's exactly what happened here the district court simply found that there were enough factors to outweigh the substantial weight of the objective reasonableness of the lewd losing  and also the the district court in early on in its decision when it explained the procedural posture that brought us to that point it said in