W.D. North Carolina cuts intellectual property fee award, including for block billing

What happened

Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP sought fees in an intellectual property matter, and the court addressed the time records entry by entry. It reduced fees on one set of highlighted entries by 30% because some of the work related to opposing a motion to compel. It cut fees on another set of highlighted entries by 50% because block billing made the relative weight of each task hard to determine. It also reduced fees on five highlighted entries by 50% because they contained tasks unrelated to the motion for sanctions. The court did not state totals, and the figures include costs.

What the court said

But given that some of the entries within this 45% discuss work relating to opposition to plaintiffs' motion to compel, the court will reduce the fees pertaining to the highlighted entries by 30% only.

Given that block billing makes it difficult to determine the relative weight to afford each task, see Guidry, 442 F. Supp. 2d at 294, the court will reduce the fees associated with the highlighted entries by 50%.

The court also reduced the award for: unrelated claims.

Why it matters

The ruling shows that courts will reduce fees on specific entries when block billing obscures how much time went to each task, rather than accepting the entries at face value. It also shows that reductions can be layered, with separate cuts for block billing and for work on unrelated matters, even when the overall award is not stated.

How to keep this out of your fee petition

• Record one task per entry, each with its own time.
• Write the entry when the work happens, not at the end of the week.
• If a task really is one unit of work, say what it was and what it produced.

Cite this ruling

Figures and quotes are taken from the opinion and checked against its text. Spot an error? Email team@legaltime.ai with the case name and we will correct it. Summaries of public court opinions. Not legal advice.