3.4 Standards of Review and Burdens of Proof

• Library: Attorney Fees and Sanctions - Virginia and Federal Courts (Virginia CLE) (2016 Ed.)

3.4 STANDARDS OF REVIEW AND BURDENS OF PROOF

3.401 Abuse of Discretion. Attorney fee award decisions are within the discretion of the district court and are reviewed for abuse of dis-cretion. ¹⁷⁰ In an appeal of attorney fees, the Fourth Circuit has stated that our standard of review is "exceptionally deferential." ¹⁷¹

[Page 130]

An appeals courts' review is sharply circumscribed—"we have recognized that because a District court has close and intimate knowledge of the efforts expended and the value of the services rendered, the fee award must not be overturned unless it is clearly wrong." ¹⁷² "The fixing of attorney fees is particularly within the province of the district court who is on the scene and able to assess the oftentimes minute conversations which weigh in the initiation of a legal action." ¹⁷³

In Mercer v. Duke University, ¹⁷⁴ the court stated that although an appeals court might have arrived at a different figure, the court has no basis to conclude that the district court abused its discretion.

3.402 Burden of Proof In a case examining 35 U.S.C. § 285, the Supreme Court rejected the federal circuit's requirement that patent fee litigants must establish entitlement to fees under section 285 by the clear and convincing evidence standard. ¹⁷⁵ The Supreme Court held that "[w]e have not interpreted comparable fee-shifting statutes to require proof of entitlement to fees by clear and convincing evidence." ¹⁷⁶ Instead, the court noted patent infringement is governed by a...