Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“served by delay in taking legal action.” Phillips Plastics Corp. v. Kato Hatsujou Kabushiki Kaisha, 57 F.3d 1051, 1053 (Fed.Cir.1995) (quoting BP Chemicals, Ltd., 4 F.3d at 977). 6 . Citizen relies primarily on the following two statements: "The critical language here is the plurality of paths have a substantially equal path length inside the luminescence conversion element. That’s the disputed language in this case” and "The evidence of infringement is undisputed, that everybody has homogenous white light.” (Gasser Deck, Ex. 11 at 85:17-20 and 89:12-13.) 7 .Plaintiff' also cites to OSRAM's suit in Germany against Citizen, but this is not relevant because it was filed after January 18, 2005. Reasonable apprehension must exist at the time suit was filed. See Arrowhead, 846 F.2d at 736 ; Holley Performance Prods., Inc. v. Barry
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the statute of limitations is tolled during a malicious prosecution suit when a timely complaint is filed
B. holding that the presence of conclusory terms in a complaint does not insulate it from dismissal when the facts alleged cannot support the charges contained in the complaint
C. holding despite authority for the general proposition that the duty to defend is determined based on the allegations of the complaint that an insurer had no duty to defend where the underlying claim was covered by the policy based on the facts pleaded in complaint but other facts not appearing in the complaint excluded coverage
D. holding that a demand for jury trial should be denied if the issues in the original complaint and the amended complaint turn on the same matrix of facts
E. holding thatjurisdiction depends on the facts existing when the complaint is filed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.