Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the balancing test first articulated in Lear. See, e.g., Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Allied Chem. Corp., 567 F.2d 184, 187-88 (2d Cir.1977) (licensee could litigate the validity of patent even though licensing agreement was entered into as part of a settlement-of earlier litigation); Schlegel Mfg. Co. v. U.S.M. Corp., 525 F.2d 775, 781 (6th Cir.1975) (enforcing consent decree, which recited that plaintiffs patent was valid); Kraly v. Nat’l Distillers & Chem. Corp., 502 F.2d 1366, 1369 (7th Cir.1974) (concluding that a licensee was not es-topped from challenging the validity of a patent even where a consent decree incorporated an understanding that the patent would not be challenged); Massillon-Cleveland-Akron Sign Co. v. Golden State Adver. Co., 444 F.2d 425, 427 (9th Cir. 1971) . The Lear balancing test has also been
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a restrictive covenant with a tenyear term was unenforceable
B. holding employment agreement consisting entirely of a covenant not to compete unenforceable because the covenant must be supported by valuable consideration
C. holding that a settlement agreement in which the parties failed to agree upon the terms of a release was unenforceable
D. holding that covenant in settlement agreement whereby defendants agreed not to contest validity of patent was unenforceable because in direct conflict with strong federal policy
E. holding that because the alleged settlement was never approved by the court under rule 9019 the settlement agreement was unenforceable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.