Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
those seven products of the snap action claims. First, we note that proof of infringement by collateral estoppel is only appropriate in limited circumstances, where it is shown that a close identity exists between the relevant features of the accused device and the device previously determined to be infringing. See Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 525 F.3d 1319, 1324 (Fed.Cir.2008) (noting that claim preclusion does not apply with respect to infringement unless the accused device and the device previously held infringing are “essentially the same,” meaning that the differences between them are merely “col-orable” or “unrelated to the limitations in the claim of the patent” (citations omitted)); see also Del Mar Avionics, Inc., v. Quinton Instrument Co., 836 F.2d 1320, 1324 (Fed.Cir.1987) ; Young Engineers, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that preclusion rules apply in section 1983 actions
B. recognizing that  2254d by its own terms applies only to claims previously adjudicated on the merits in statecourt proceedings
C. holding that claim preclusion did not apply because a device not previously before the court and shown to differ from those structures previously litigated requires a determination on its own facts
D. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply laches where the only prejudice shown by the government was attributable to its own delay rather than to that of the movant
E. holding that preclusion rules apply in 1983 actions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.