discussed Cited "but see" Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc. But see Jim Arnold Corp. v. Hydrotech Sys., Inc., 109 F.3d 1567 , 1571-72, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1119 , 1122-24 (Fed.Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 338 , 139 L.Ed.2d 262 (1997) (denying section 1338(a) jurisdiction for a claim raising ownership and inventorship disputes). 48 Were we to conclude that validity and enforceability, unlike infringement, were not substantial enough, then there would be no section 1338(a) jurisdiction over count four, because Hunter Douglas could prevail under theories that do not depend on a substantial question of federal patent law.

discussed Cited "but see" Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc. But see Jim Arnold Corp. v. Hydrotech Sys., Inc., 109 F.3d 1567 , 1571-72, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1119 , 1122-24 (Fed.Cir.1997), cer t. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 338 , 139 L.Ed.2d 262 (1997) (denying section 1338(a) jurisdiction for a claim raising-ownership and inventorship disputes).