knowledge or specialized skill needful for the litigation in question — as opposed to an extraordinary level of the general lawyerly knowledge and ability useful in all litigation. Examples of the former would be an identifiable practice specialty such as patent law, or knowledge of a foreign law or language.” Id. at 572, 108 S.Ct. 2541. A government-contract case does not require the kind of specialized knowledge or skill that would justify an enhanced award. See Prowest Diversified, Inc. v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 879, 889 (1998); see also Filtration Dev., 63 Fed.Cl. at 624 (describing an argument “alleging, without more, that government contract law was a specialty” as resting “on shaky ground”); California Marine Cleaning, Inc. v. United States, 43 Fed.Cl. 724, 732 (1999) (<HOLDING>). 2. COLA adjustment. Infiniti’s proposed COLA
holding attorneys expertise and success in bid protests was an insufficient basis to exceed eajas statutory cap holding that notice of judgment was insufficient holding that where the plaintiffs copyright infringement claim was without a reasonable legal basis an award of attorneys fees to the defendants was a proper exercise of judicial discretion holding that an attorneys arguments are not evidence holding that plaintiffs equal protection conspiracy claim which was the basis of the lawsuit was groundless and thus defendants were entitled to an award of attorneys fees