Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“[A] seller of a ‘material part’ of a patented item may be a contributory infringer if he makes a non-staple article that he knows was ‘especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent.’ ” Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. R & D Tool & Eng’g Co., 291 F.3d 780, 784 (Fed.Cir.2002) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 271(c); Dawson Chem. Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176, 219, 100 S.Ct. 2601, 65 L.Ed.2d 696 (1980)). Section 271(c) has been interpreted to require not only knowledge that the component was especially made or adapted for a particular use but also knowledge of the patent which proscribed that use. See Hewlett-Packard, 909 F.2d at 1469 n. 4 (citing Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476, 488, 84 S.Ct. 1526, 12 L.Ed.2d 457 ) OGT alleges that Mergen is liable for
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that apprendi does not require the government to prove that defendant knew type and amount of controlled substance
B. holding that a plaintiff seeking to establish inducement to infringe must show that the alleged infringers actions induced infringing acts and that he knew or should have known his actions would induce actual infringements
C. holding that section 1983 action requires a showing of defendants personal participation in alleged constitutional violation
D. recognizing that ocga  911111 embodies both a procedural and substantive component
E. holding that section 271c does require a showing that the alleged contributory infringer knew that the combination for which his component was especially designed was both patented and infringing
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.