With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Breezy-Print’s source code before the litigation. When BreezyPrint did produce its source code in discovery, it was under a three-tiered protective order. (Docket Entry No. 31). PrinterOn did not have access to the source code later produced in discovery when it did its presuit investigation. BreezyPrint argues that Printer-On’s failure to download its publicly available app and to try to reverse engineer that software before filing this lawsuit proves inadequate prefiling investigation. There are cases holding that sanctions may be appropriate if a plaintiff or its counsel does not download publicly available information, such as software, necessary to compare products suspected of infringing with the patent claims. See, e.g., Judin v. United States, 110 F.3d 780, 784 (Fed.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Smart Options, LLC v. Jump Rope, Inc., No. 12

A: holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a sanctions motion when the record showed that neither the plaintiff nor his counsel had obtained or attempted to obtain a sample of the accused device  so that its actual design and functioning could be compared with the claims of the patent
B: holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen
C: holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint
D: holding that where the record showed neither that the trial court explained to the defendant his right to a jury trial nor an effective waiver of the right structural error occurred
A.