With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Novatel Wireless, Inc, v. Franklin Wireless Corp., No. 10CV2530-CAB (JMA), 2012 WL 12845615, -at *3 (S.D. Cal. July 19, 2012). Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has made a prim a facie showing of induced infringement. Second, the Court finds Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of contributory infringement. Like induced infringement, the sale of the accused products in this district by third-party retailers in conjunction with Defendant’s inclusion of its instructions that nearly parallel Plaintiffs method claims form a prima facie basis of direct infringement in the contributory infringement context. See Cascades Computer Innovation, LLC vr Samsung Elecs. Co., 77 F.Supp.3d 756, 767 (N.D. Ill. 2015); see also Cugley v. Bundy Incubator. Co., 93 F.2d 932, 935 (6th Cir. 1937) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Plaintiffs June 30, 2016 cease and

A: holding that a corporation that sold device with instructions that patented method  be employed in its use was guilty of contributory  infringement
B: holding that the actual amount of capital employed in the state by a foreign corporation was to be based on the property of the corporation that was within the state and that was used in business transacted within the state
C: holding that the use of a corset spring device was public although the use was by its nature not visible to the general public
D: holding in light of knotts that lower court did not abuse its discretion in cutting short testimony about use of gps device appellant did not cite knotts in his briefs or affirmatively argue use of device was a search
A.