With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ¶ 127.) The Complaints plausibly allege that a no-AG agreement is both very valuable to a generic manufacturer (and thus may induce it to stay out of the market) and amounts to a sacrifice by a brand manufacturer, rendering the potential anticompetitive effect plain. On a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, this is sufficient. See Aggrenox I, 94 F.Supp.3d at 245 (“If some particular transfer of money would be unlawful—for whatever reason— its unlawfulness is not cured merely because the value is transferred in the form of exclusive licenses instead of cash, irrespective of whether the grant of an exclusive license would otherwise be valid.... The issue is not whether the form of the payment was legal, but whether the purpose of the payment was legal.”); see also Lamictal, 791 F.3d at 409 (<HOLDING>); Opana, 162 F.Supp.3d at 718; In re Solodyn

A: holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation
B: holding that an acceleration clause is not subject to antitrust scrutiny where plaintiffs conceded that they could be procompetitive in some circumstances but noting that noag clauses are subject to antitrust scrutiny
C: holding that a noag agreement because it may represent an unusual unexplained transfer of value from the patent holder to the alleged infringer that cannot be adequately justifiedwhether as compensation for litigation expenses or services or otherwiseis subject to antitrust scrutiny under the rule of reason internal footnote omitted
D: holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing
C.