With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". well as the various cases (both pre- and post-Maw-ville) that reach the same result, far more persuasive than those courts that have concluded that a District Court has no jurisdiction under § 1498 to entertain a claim for damages against a private party (as opposed to the United States) relating to sales made to the Government. In a suit between private parties, § 1498 is available to defendants as an affirmative defense, but is not a jurisdictional bar. Having decided that § 1498 applies in this case and that it establishes an affirmative defense as to private defendants, there remains the question of whether this Court will allow IBM to amend its complaint to assert that affirmative defense, or whether this Court will grant TM’s in limine motion to pr 831 F.Supp. 480 (E.D.N.C.1993) (<HOLDING>); Auerbach v. Sverdrup Corp., 829 F.2d 1-75

A: holding service requirements under fedrcivp 4 to be jurisdictional
B: holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional
C: holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional
D: holding  1498 to be jurisdictional regardless of defendant type
D.