Tolmar case on attorney fees

The CAFC in affirming the district court observed:

Tolmar raises three primary arguments on appeal, of which none are persuasive. First, Tolmar contends that the district court applied the wrong legal test by focusing on limited portions of the case, rather than the totality of the circumstances. However, the record reflects that the district court properly evaluated the totality of the circumstances consistent with the law. We cannot fault the court for doing its job by discussing some specifics of the case as part of that totality analysis.1 Second, Tolmar contends that the district court required a showing of bad faith for exceptionality, but again, Tolmar is mistaken. The district court discussed bad faith only as part of its totality analysis. It never transformed bad faith into an outcome-determinative factor. Third and finally, Tolmar argues that the district court engaged in a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, given the conduct of Tolmar’s opponent, Horatio Washington Depot Technologies LLC (“Horatio”). As the district court noted, much of Horatio’s conduct was potentially concerning, but we are not convinced—given the standard of review and the district court’s detailed consideration of these issues—that the court abused its discretion