D. Massachusetts cuts intellectual property fee award 60%, including for vague entries

What happened

KPM Analytics North America Corporation, represented by Sunstein, sought $3,799,531 in attorneys' fees. The court awarded $1,519,800, a reduction of $2,279,731, or 60%. The court applied an approximately 60% global reduction to the total fee request. Among the reasons, the court found that a non-negligible amount of the entries were too heavily redacted or too vague to pass muster, and that block billing was used too commonly.

What the court said

a non-negligible amount of KPM’s entries were either too heavily redacted and/or too vague to pass muster.

Another deficiency with KPM’s submission was the too common use of block billing.

The court also reduced the award for: other.

Why it matters

The ruling shows that a court may apply a single global percentage cut to an entire fee request when time entries are vague, heavily redacted, or block billed, rather than adjusting individual entries. It signals that the clarity and specificity of time records can affect the total award even when the reduction is not itemized line by line.

How to keep this out of your fee petition

• Name the task, the document or person involved, and the purpose.
• Avoid stock phrases that could describe any day in any matter.
• Keep privileged detail general, but specific enough to show the work.

Cite this ruling

See hourly rates the D. Massachusetts approves and attorney fee motions in Massachusetts federal courts.

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.