Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to interfere, see Toulabi v. United States, 875 F.2d 122, 125-26 (7th Cir.1989), a franchise is a right that belongs to the government when conferred upon a citizen and that inheres in the sovereign power, see Borre v. United States, 940 F.2d 215, 220 (7th Cir.1991). The Seventh Circuit has held that fraud in procuring a franchise is subject to the mail fraud statute. See Borre, 940 F.2d at 220. According to Samsung, a patent, like a franchise, enables its owner to exclude others, including the government. We apply our own law to determine whether SEL’s conduct before the PTO qualifies as mail fraud for purposes of the predicate acts requirement of the federal RICO statute. See Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1574, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1631 (Fed.Cir.1996) . We agree with the district court that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that though we do not have exclusive jurisdiction over unfair competition claims our own circuit law nonetheless determines when inequitable conduct also constitutes unfair competition
B. holding that as in an action alleging infringement of a mark likelihood of confusion is the essence of an unfair competition claim
C. holding that antitrust violations are unfair methods of competition under the ftc act
D. holding the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over condemnation proceedings
E. holding that actual reliance is not required to establish injury under nc gen stat  5863151 2001 which governs the unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.