With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". applies in contract disputes. Core-Vent, 11 F.3d at 1486; McGlinchy v. Shell Chemical Co., 845 F.2d 802, 817 (9th Cir. 1988). However, the court has extended the effects doctrine to certain tort actions. See Panavision II, 141 F.3d at 1321; Ziegler v. Indian River Cty., 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1995). “Numerous cases both within and outside this circuit have applied the doctrine to actions for willful copyright infringement or other torts involving intellectual property.” Autodesk, 2004 WL 603382, at *4 (finding the effects doctrine applicable for copyright infringement claim brought by Autodesk for software purchased by a Missouri architectural firm and collecting cases, including Columbia Pictures Television v. Krypton Bd. of Birmingham, Inc., 106 F.3d 284, 289 (9th Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by Feltner v.

A: holding that the objective prong for willful infringement is generally not met where an accused infringer relies on a reasonable defense to a charge of infringement
B: holding that where the plaintiffs copyright infringement claim was without a reasonable legal basis an award of attorneys fees to the defendants was a proper exercise of judicial discretion
C: holding that willful copyright infringement alone was enough to establish purposeful availment
D: holding that knowledge of the patent is required for willful infringement
C.