With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". limit, or condition the promise not to sue as to Atlantech, which was the only party before the district court charged with infringement. Future disputes relating to Atlantech’s successors in interest and others in privity with Atlantech are just that-future disputes. They must be left to future cases and are not ripe for consideration in this case. See Amana, 172 F.3d at 855-56; Super Sack, 57 F.3d at 1060; Spectronics Corp. v. H.B. Fuller Co., 940 F.2d 631, 637-38 (Fed.Cir.1991). Once Inline made its unconditional promise not to sue Atlantech, the case or controversy at the center of the lawsuit became nonjusticiable, and any apprehension on Atlantech’s part that it would face further claims of infringement of Inline’s asserted patents was eliminated. Super Sack, 57 F.3d at 1059 (<HOLDING>). The filing by Inline of its motion to dismiss

A: holding that plaintiffs infringement claim against defendants laterdeveloped product would be barred by laches and estoppel found applicable to earlier product if subsequent product is equivalent to earlier one under doctrine of equivalents
B: holding that plaintiffs unconditional agreement not to sue defendant for infringement based upon any product then manufactured by defendant rendered noninfringement and invalidity counterclaims nonjusticiable
C: holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
D: holding a covenant not to sue mooted a counterclaim of trademark invalidity notwithstanding the lack of an admission or finding of liability
B.