With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (Countercl.¶¶ 71, 78); (3) Bristol misappropriated Baker Norton’s confidential business information, learned that Baker Norton was preparing to apply for orphan drug status to market paclitaxel to treat Kaposi’s sarcoma and submitted its own request for orphan drug status (Countercl.¶¶ 84, 92). Additionally, (4) while the FDA was considering Baker Norton’s application for orphan drug status, Bristol met privately with high-level FDA officials in an effort to block the application (Countercl.¶ 91). By analogy to Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., Baker Norton and Zenith Goldline assert that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine does not protect misconduct in ex parte proceedings before a government agency. See 382 U.S. 172, 86 S.Ct. 347, 15 L.Ed.2d 247 (1965) (<HOLDING>). This analogy is too broad. Even taken at face

A: holding that a plaintiff may state a claim under the sherman act for a defendants enforcement of a patent procured by fraud on the pto where the plaintiff alleges deliberate fraud and the other elements of a monopolization claim under section 2 of the sherman act
B: holding that complaint alleging defendant attempted to monopolize by threatening to and pursuing legal enforcement of patent procured by fraud on patent office stated claim under  2 of sherman act
C: holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation
D: holding that maintenance and enforcement of a patent obtained by fraud on the pto can form the basis for antitrust liability
D.