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,
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 holding patent policy incorporated by reference into patent agreement 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 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 that the district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 usc  1338a over a legal malpractice claim that was based upon an alleged attorney error in drafting a patent claim in a manner that narrowed the scope of the patent