With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". be removed to a federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). The question i orp., 486 U.S. 800, 808, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988)). According to the Supreme Court, a case “arises under” federal law in “only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal, 468 U.S. 1, 27-28, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983). This was the commonly understood definition of “arising under” at the time of § 1445(c)’s passage in 1958. See American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bolder Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260, 36 S.Ct. 585, 60 L.Ed. 987 (1916) (<HOLDING>). Applying the definition of “arising under”

A: 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
B: holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law
C: 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
D: holding action did not arise under the patent laws
C.