Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
view of the unsettled state of the law on this issue, IBM’s adoption of the position that it viewed as favorable to itself, and its decision to raise the issue as a Rule 12(b)(1) motion for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, was not unreasonable (imprudent, perhaps, but not unreasonable). Therefore, TM’s motion in limine to prevent IBM from asserting a defense under § 1498 is denied and the amendment is allowed. 5. TM’s motion for sanctions as per Fed.R.Civ. , 57 F.Supp.2d 961 (C.D.Cal.1999) (surveying the caselaw and holding that § 1498 is jurisdictional as to governmental defendants and, in the case of private defendants, establishes an affirmative defense that must be timely asserted). 2 . See Croll-Reynolds Co. v. Perini-Leavell-Jones-Vinell, 399 F.2d 913 (5th Cir.1968) , cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1050, 89 S.Ct. 688, 21
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that given the version of  1498 then in place the governments authorization and consent to allegedly infringing manufacture formed a basis for a transfer of jurisdiction from the district court to the court of claims now the court of federal claims
B. holding that the accused item was used by the government under an older version of  1498 and that therefore the only remedy was a suit against the united states in the court of claims now the court of federal claims
C. holding that to exhaust a claim the claims raised at the administrative appeal must be so similar that the district court can ascertain that the agency was on notice of and had an opportunity to consider and decide the same claims now raised in federal court
D. holding that claims arising under the sixth amendment fall outside the jurisdiction of the court of federal claims
E. holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.