review of willfulness is problematic. The panel is divided over the strength of Gore’s joint inventorship defense. Each side advances a sound argument about whether the evidence in this case raises a “substantial question” of joint inventorship. And the district court, likewise, provided a thorough and well-reasoned opinion. If one of these several reasonable opinions must ultimately govern, it should be the opinion of the district judge, whose assessment of litigation positions is informed by trial experience and who has “lived with the case over a prolonged period of time.” Highmark, 134 S.Ct. at 1748. A more deferential standard of review would be consistent with the standards for reviewing mixed questions of law and fact in other contexts. See, e.g., Highmark, 134 S.Ct. at 1748-49 (<HOLDING>); Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 558, 108
holding abuse of discretion is the proper standard for reviewing award of attorney fees in patent cases although questions of law may in some cases be relevant holding proper basis for award of fees holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding that a court has broad discretion in awarding attorney fees under the eaja but is not required to make an award in all cases where a party seeks supplemental or increased fees holding that abuse of discretion is the correct standard in reviewing a district court order disqualifying the district attorney for an appearance of impropriety