With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". be determined from what appears in Solar’s complaint. Cf. Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So.2d 561, 568-69 (Fla. 2005) (“[W]hen a defendant asserts [a lack of subject matter] defense in a motion to dismiss, a trial court must determine the issue as a matter of law based only on the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint, assuming the truth of the facts asserted.”). Although Solar’s complaint is carefully couched as a matter of legal malpractice, the complaint necessarily invites the trial court to make initial determinations as to the patent’s scope, validity, or infringement. These issues are best decided in a federal court lawsuit between Solar and an alleged in-fringer. See Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 808-09, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988) (<HOLDING>). We think Schachel, 405 So.2d at 487-88,

A: holding patent policy incorporated by reference into patent agreement
B: holding that the application of an element of a state law tort is preempted if in holding a defendant hable for the conduct  there would be conflict with federal patent law
C: holding that  1338a jurisdiction inures when a complaint establishes that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law in that patent law is a necessary element of one of the wellpleaded claims
D: holding that libel and slander suit that involved statements concerning plaintiffs patent for a pump arose under state law not federal patent law a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action
C.