With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that in Clontech, the patents at issue were for sophisticated molecular biology products. 15 . Solo made similar arguments in its Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, asserting that marking a product with an expired patent could not be a false marking, in part because of the smaller possibility of deceit and minimal benefit to the marker. The Court disagreed. Pequignot I, 540 F.Supp.2d at 654. That holding remains unchanged; if a party falsely marks an article with an expired patent with actual intent to deceive, § 292 is violated. However, at the summary judgment stage, where Solo’s liability turns on whether it intended to deceive, the absence of any reason to deceive strongly suggests that no such intent existed. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 596-97, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (<HOLDING>). 16 .Although Clontech and Arcadia are

A: holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed
B: holding that the absence of any plausible motive to engage in the conduct charged was highly relevant to determining whether summary judgment should have been granted in a civil conspiracy case
C: holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed
D: holding that res judicata barred conspiracy claim against defendant even though defendant had not been a party to the prior action because the civil conspiracy claim should have been adjudicated in a prior action and defendant as an alleged participant in the conspiracy would have been indispensable party to that adjudication
B.