With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". According to LGE, Intel’s sale of microprocessors and chipsets to Defendants was n fendants’ contention that a patentee may not impose more onerous conditions on someone who purchases the patented device from a licensee than on the licensee. However, the mere fact that LGE is entitled to impose conditions on the sale of the essential components of its patented products does not mean that it actually did so here. To the contrary, Defendants’ purchase of the microprocessors and chip-sets from Intel was unconditional, in that Defendants’ purchase of microprocessors and chipsets from Intel was in no way conditioned on their agreement not to combine the Intel microprocessors and chipsets with other non-Intel parts and then sell the resultant products. Cf. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 976 F.2d at 709 (<HOLDING>). Nor does the fact that Intel informed its

A: holding that exercising general jurisdiction over defendant was improper where its actual sales in florida were a small percentage of the total sales and therefore these sales were de minimis 
B: holding that the fact that defendants sales in forum were less than 5 percent of its total sales volume was irrelevant so long as its sales were part of a regular course of dealing and were not isolated or exceptional events
C: holding that conditional sales of patented devices are not per se illegal but remanding to the district court to determine if the sales at issue were actually conditional
D: holding such agreements to be per se illegal
C.