Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Tourtellot, No. 12-CV-413 (M.D.N.C. June 13, 2012) (Doc. 15 at 9-10) (finding that, under either mandatory withdrawal standard, legal issues triggered § 157(d)). Defendant Debtors’ complaint raises a claim of trademark infringement. (Doc. 5 ¶¶ 93-95.) It alleges that UD filed a federal application to register “AROUNDCAMPUS” as a trademark and service mark. (Id. ¶ 19.) The application currently awaits decision before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (Id.) It further alleges that the mark 6 F.3d 144, 152-53 (4th Cir.2012) (laying out a multi-part test to establish trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act and articulating “at least nine factors” relevant to one part of that test); cf. In re Singer Co., N.V., No. 01 CIV. 0165, 2002 WL 243779, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2002) . Defendant Debtors cite Doctors Assoc., Inc.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding patent policy incorporated by reference into patent agreement
B. holding that the assignor of a patent retained substantial rights in the patent and must be added as an indispensable party
C. holding that copyright infringement defendant failed to prove the affirmative defense of unclean hands which was based on the patent holders marking of its product with an expired patent because there was no evidence that the patent holder had acted with the requisite intent to deceive
D. holding that whether an accused product infringes a patent requires significant and material consideration of patent law and thus withdrawal of reference was mandatory
E. holding a nonparty to a patent infringement suit who funded an unsuccessful challenge to a patent could not file a subsequent lawsuit again challenging the patent
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.