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”
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 holding action did not arise under the patent laws holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law 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 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