the tasks with the respective attorneys who undertook them creates ambiguity as to whether the task was performed by an attorney or a paralegal. Moreover, if the task was indeed carried out by an attorney, the plaintiffs failure to identify that person by name leaves uncertainty as to his or her level of experience. Because the fee petition fails to provide sufficient detail as to who undertook each individual activity, the court cannot ascertain whether the hourly billing rate for each respective task is reasonable, and thus cannot determine whether the plaintiffs requested attorney’s fees are reasonable. Even if the plaintiffs fee petition is somewhat deficient, however, complete denial of fees is inappropriate. See Jordan v. Dep’t of Justice, 691 F.2d 514, 518-19 (D.C.Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). The court may, instead, reduce the overall
holding that a finding of plaintiffs bad faith is not a prerequisite to the trial courts exercise of discretion to award fees holding that a bad faith claim is a tort holding that complete denial of fees should be reserved for only extreme situations such as when the petitioner offers no affidavits or timesheets or when the application is filed in bad faith holding there can be no claim for bad faith when an insurer has promptly denied a claim that is in fact not covered holding that the district court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the patentee acted in subjective bad faith and should consider whether circumstantial evidence would support an inference of bad faith