A client sued his former attorney in federal court for malpractice. The client had retained the attorney to file and prosecute U.S. patent applications. The client alleged that if the attorney had not omitted from the client's patent application a portion of the computer source code for the client's invention, the resulting U.S. patent would not have been held invalid for indefiniteness. The malpractice claim requires analysis of U.S. patent law and proof of the patent's invalidity. Claims arising under U.S. patent law are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. In response to the former client's complaint, the attorney moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. How should the court rule on that motion?
A: The court should deny the motion to dismiss because plaintiff's right to relief depends on the resolution of a substantial, disputed question of federal law.
B: The court should deny the motion to dismiss because federal patent law completely preemptsthe plaintiff's malpractice claim.
C: The court should grant the motion to dismiss because the claim cannot arise under federal law since it is a state-law created claim.
D: The court should grant the motion to dismiss because the claim does not sufficiently raise a substantial, disputed question of federal law to support federal jurisdiction.