With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In fact, ERG’s counsel really should not have even included the claims in the first place. Thus, this argument does not convince us that the award of attorney’s fees was not warranted. See Hughes v. Novi American, Inc., 724 F.2d 122, 125 (Fed.Cir.1984) (stating that the fact that a plaintiffs lawyer knows that the plaintiffs copyright claims are not valid is a factor meriting an award of attorney’s fees). Therefore, because the evidence in the record reveals that ERG never had any evidence to support its Inflatimation claims, the district court properly found that it was objectively unreasonable for ERG to have maintained these claims. Accordingly, the district court did not err in deciding to award attorney’s fees to Genesis as the prevailing party. See, e.g., Fantasy, 94 F.3d at 560 (<HOLDING>); Diamond v. Am-Law Pub. Corp., 745 F.2d 142,

A: holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony
B: holding that since the reasons given by the district court in this case are wellfounded in the record and are in keeping with the purposes of the copyright act the court acted within its discretion in awarding a reasonable attorneys fee
C: holding that the district court acted within its discretion when it denied plaintiffs request for counsel
D: holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest on attorneys fees paid prior to the entry of judgment
B.