With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is no reason in law or policy why Odettes should be precluded from obtaining an injunction against the use of the products by the customer defendants merely because those products left Storagetek’s stem for the storage and handling of data cassettes. 3 . Specifically, the accused products are Storage-tek’s ACS 4400, Powderhom, and WolfCreek ATLs. The latter two were not developed until the early 1990s, several years after the development of the ACS 4400. Because the Powderhom and Wolfcreek are essentially identical to the ACS 4400 with respect to the elements at issue here, however, it is appropriate to treat all three ATL products as a single device, produced beginning in 1987, for purposes of the laches analysis. See MGA, Inc. v. Centri-Spray Corp., 699 F.Supp. 610 (E.D.Mich.1987) (<HOLDING>). 4 . In his first sworn declaration, Odetics

A: holding that whether a product is within comment k should be determined on a case by case basis where it is shown that the product is unavoidably unsafe and product of exceptional social need
B: holding that to constitute infringement under the doctrine of equivalents the accused product must contain each limitation of the claim or its equivalent
C: 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
D: holding statements of product superiority and that product was industry approved were puffery
C.