Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
claim that neither of these prongs was satisfied. With regard to the first prong, the Defendants contend that the jury did not have a legally sufficient basis to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Defendants were objectively reckless. In order to support this contention, the Defendants point to both their non-infringement defense and the invalidity defense of obviousness. The existence of an objective risk of infringement is “determined by the record developed in the infringement proceeding.” Id. The objective prong is not established when the accused infringer puts forward a reasonable defense to infringement, even if the jury ultimately reaches a verdict of infringement. See Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., 620 F.3d 1305, 1319 (Fed.Cir.2010) ; DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that contributory trademark infringement requires some predicate act of infringement
B. holding that knowledge of the patent is required for willful infringement
C. holding that the objective prong of willfulness was not met where a defendants defenses were reasonable
D. holding that alleged infringer waived privilege with respect to all documents pertaining to the infringement of the patent
E. holding that the objective prong for willful infringement is generally not met where an accused infringer relies on a reasonable defense to a charge of infringement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.