Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
aff d in part, rev’d, vacated and remanded in part, 226 F.3d 1334 (2000); McCreary v. United States, 35 Fed.Cl. 533, 536 n. 1, 547 (1996) (distinguishing between a patent infringement action between private parties and the "so-called 'patent infringement’ by the United States, which is an uncompensated taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment”); Penda Corp. v. United States, 29 Fed.Cl. 533, 573 (1993) (reasonable and entire compensation is based upon a theory of eminent domain); Messerschmidt v. United States, 29 Fed.Cl. 1, 44 (1993) ("Therefore, for purposes of the instant claims of 'direct infringement,' or more properly for purposes of this compulsory, nonexclusive license analysis in eminent domain ...."); Ha-las v. United States, 28 Fed.Cl. 354, 360 n. 10 (1993) ; Judin v. United States, 27 Fed.Cl. 759, 773
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding patent policy incorporated by reference into patent agreement
B. recognizing theory of constructive possession
C. recognizing  1498 is based on principles related to the taking of property namely a patent license
D. recognizing that the theory behind united statess use of a patent is a taking
E. holding a nonparty to a patent infringement suit who funded an unsuccessful challenge to a patent could not file a subsequent lawsuit again challenging the patent
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.