With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a state for contributory infringement, because the state had waived its immunity under Parden v. Terminal Railway, 377 U.S. 184, 84 S.Ct. 1207, 12 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964)); Hercules, Inc. v. Minnesota State Highway Dep’t, 337 F.Supp. 795, 798, 172 USPQ 644, 647 (D.Minn.1972) (concluding that injunctive relief under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), but not monetary relief under Title 35, was available to a patentee for alleged infringement by a state); William C. Popper & Co v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd., 16 F.Supp. 762, 763 (E.D.Pa.1936) (dismissing an infringement claim as barred by the Eleventh Amendment); Automobile Abstract & Title Co. v. Haggerty, 46 F.2d 86, 87-88 (E.D.Mich.1931) (same); Warren Bros. Co. v. Kibbe, 43 F.2d 582, 584 (D.Ore.1925) (<HOLDING>); cf. May v. Board of Comm’rs, 30 F. 250, 261

A: holding that a state had waived its immunity to suit for patent infringement by agreeing to indemnify contractors for royalties owed due to their infringement of patents for paving materials
B: holding that ohio counties could be sued for patent infringement
C: holding that alleged infringer waived privilege with respect to all documents pertaining to the infringement of the patent
D: holding that contributory trademark infringement requires some predicate act of infringement
A.