district court’s final decision is properly before this court. In resolving the question of our jurisdiction over this appeal, it is unimportant that neither party raises a challenge thereto, nor does it make any difference that the district court failed to articulate § 1338(a) as a basis of its jurisdiction. This court must, in every appeal, assure itself that jurisdiction exists. This court has stated that for jurisdiction of the district court to have been founded on § 1338(a), “plaintiff must have asserted some right or interest under the patent laws, or at least some right or privilege that would be defeated by one or sustained by an opposite construction of those laws.” Beghin-Say International, Inc. v. Ole-Bendt Rasmussen, 733 F.2d 1568, 1570, 221 USPQ 1121, 1123 (Fed.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>), citing Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. Pacific
holding the retaliation claim did arise under states workers compensation laws holding that illinois cause of action for retaliation does not arise under its workers compensation laws holding action did not arise under the patent laws holding that retaliation claim did not arise under states workers compensation laws holding that texas cause of action for retaliation does arise under its workers compensation laws