With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was to prevent exactly the type of activity [Defendant] has engaged in, i.e., generating interest in a potential infringing product to the commercial detriment of the rightful pat-entee.” 3D Systems, Inc. v. Aarotech Laboratories, Inc., 160 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed.Cir.1998). However, the specific decision in 3D Systems was that “price quotation letters can be regarded as ‘offer[s] to sell’ under § 271 based on the substance conveyed in the letters, i.e., a description of the allegedly infringing merchandise and the price at which it can be purchased.” 160 F.3d 1373 at 1379. More importantly, the Federal Circuit stated two years later that: “the meaning of ‘offer to sell’ is to be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning in contract law.” Rotec Ind , 20 F.Supp.2d 690, 696 (D.Del.1998) (<HOLDING>). Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Newbridge

A: holding that an offer to donate cannot be an offer to sell
B: holding that mere advertisements which are directed at a national audience and contain no pricing information are insufficient in and of themselves to constitute an offer to sell
C: holding that an internet site containing product descriptions but no pricing information is not an offer to sell
D: recognizing that motions for directed verdicts are not normally directed to bits and pieces of an action
B.