Opinion ID: 209980
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: KSEA’s Cross-appeal for Attorney Fees

Text: “The determination of whether a case is exceptional and, thus, eligible for and warranting an award of attorney fees under § 285 is a two-step process in which the district court must (1) determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence that a case is exceptional, a factual determination reviewed for clear error, and (2) if so, then determine in its discretion whether an award of attorney fees is justified, a determination that we review for an abuse of discretion.” Diego, Inc. v. Audible, Inc., 505 F.3d 1362, 2007-1353, -1378 -10- 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Cybor, 138 F.3d at 1460). KSEA’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the district court about the objective reasonableness of Luma’s litigation positions and the vexatiousness of its litigation conduct. Such differences of opinion without sufficient underlying evidence fall far short of demonstrating either clear error in a finding requiring clear and convincing evidence in the first instance or an abuse of discretion in the second instance. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of KSEA’s motion for attorney fees.