Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
extinguished and “the patentee’s only protection is that afforded under the patent law.” Id. This black-letter rule is rooted in principles of the supremacy of federal law. Id. (“These provisions of federal patent law prevail over any inconsistent State remedies.”). Here, plaintiff contends that its agent, William Cohen, contacted Reebok in May 1986 “for the purpose of exploring Reebok’s interest in manufacturing and/or marketing athletic footwear utilizing plaintiffs air bladder trade secret.” (First Am.Compl. ¶ 12.) The gravamen of plaintiffs state law claims is thus that Reebok used plaintiffs trade secret in the development of The Pump shoe line. Plaintiff Stutz’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee, Warren Liu, has stated in deposition testimony that the trade secr .Supp. 523, 533 (D.Cal.1958) . Here, it is undisputed that Reebok did not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the defendants were entitled to recover as costs not only bond premiums but the additional cost to obtain a letter of credit that was required by the surety as collateral before the issuance of bond
B. holding that plaintiff could recover royalties only for products manufactured by defendant after disclosure of secret but before issuance of patent
C. holding that plaintiff could recover only damages sustained as a result of the sale of the accused product by defendant prior to the issuance date
D. holding that but for merger plaintiff could have sued predecessor that manufactured defective equipment as third party but not analyzing basis for such a suit
E. holding that disclosure of trade secret without protection of express confidentiality agreement was not fatal to trade secret protection where disclosure occurred during sale negotiation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.