With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1291 v. Phila. Marine Trade Ass’n, 389 U.S. 64, 74, 88 S.Ct. 201, 19 L.Ed.2d 236 (1967), and to minimize needless contempt proceedings, Additive Controls, 986 F.2d at 480, 25 USPQ2d at 1801. We have held that an injunctive order runs afoul of Rule 65 when it “does not use specific terms or describe in reasonable detail the acts sought to be restrained” and it “does not limit its prohibition to the manufacture, use, or sale of the specific infringing devices, or to [those] no more than colorably different from the infringing devices.” Id. at 479, 25 USPQ2d at 1801. We have even upheld an injunctive order employing nonspecific language on the ground that the detailed record of the case ameliorated any risk of unwarranted contempt actions. Signtech USA, 174 F.3d at 1359, 50 USPQ2d at 1377 (<HOLDING>). The language of the present order is

A: holding that the court may issue an injunction prohibiting a defendant from repeating statements determined at trial to be defamatory
B: holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy
C: holding that injunction violated rule 65d in spite of incorporating the parties own contract language
D: holding that an injunction prohibiting any further infringement of the  patent complies with rule 65d
D.