With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2014 WL 1008183, at *31 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2014), rev’d in part on other grounds, 616 Fed.Appx. 987 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (placing the initial burden on the alleged infringer to put the patentee “on notice” of unmarked products and finding it failed to meet its burden because of conflicting expert testimony and failure to produce admissible evidence showing a patented product was sold); Fortinet, 2015 WL 5971585, at *5 (adopting a “burden of production on [the alleged infringer] to identify the. [unmarked products] it believes practice the inventions claimed” and granting partial summary judgment in favor of the . alleged infringer where its expert report was “not too conclusory”); Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 13-CV-04134-VC, 2017 WL 1175379, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) (<HOLDING>). This district court agreed with that

A: holding at most the infringer bears some initial burden of plausibly identifying products subject to the marking requirement and granting summary judgment in favor of the alleged infringer where it submitted a declaration and attached exhibits identifying particular products
B: holding that a failure to mark 13 of products is certainly not adequate marking
C: holding district court erred in granting summary judgment for plaintiff as to scope of relevant product market because plaintiff had not alleged sufficient facts to satisfy its burden of showing products were interchangeable
D: holding that a plaintiff must show that a defendant did not have an honest good faith belief in marking its products
A.