Opinion ID: 209986
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Judkins's motion for attorney's fees and costs

Text: Judkins has filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs in which he argues that HT's appeal is frivolous. The court denied the motion on January 14, 2008, and we write further to explain that denial. The thrust of Judkins's argument is that this court almost never reverses the denial of a preliminary injunction, except in cases based on errors of claim construction, and is especially deferential to district courts' determinations of the balance of harms and irreparable injury in this context. HT should reasonably have known it could not prevail, according to Judkins. Judkins also says that HT's real motivation in filing the appeal is to drive up his litigation costs. HT counters that Judkins improperly argues this appeal is governed by a  de facto ban on appeals by parties in HT's position. HT also argues that it raised several issues of law that this court reviews de novo, rather than for abuse of discretion, making the appeal something less futile. The court will grant a motion for fees and costs such as Judkins's only when an appeal is clearly hopeless and unquestionably without any possible basis in fact or law. Chemical Eng'g Corp. v. Marlo, 754 F.2d 331, 335 (Fed.Cir.1984). Judkins's assertion that [g]enerally, the Federal Circuit never grants appeals such as this one does not get beyond the generic fact that HT's is an appeal from a denial of a preliminary injunction that does not involve claim construction. The district court's findings on irreparable injury and the balance of harms are reviewed for clear error, which means HT faced slim odds of prevailing. Slim is not none, however, and in any event Judkins's argument does not take into account HT's assertions of errors of law by the district court. Judkins has failed to show by reference to specific features of this appeal that it was clearly hopeless.