A plaintiff sued a defendant in state court in State A, alleging that the defendant violated the plaintiff's patent on a new type of air conditioner. The defendant removed the case to federal court in State A and quickly lost on the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The defendant appeals, claiming that because the case was improperly brought in state court, which does not have jurisdiction over patent cases, it was not removable to federal court, and the federal court thus lacked jurisdiction. The plaintiff argues that no rule requires that the state court have had jurisdiction over a removed case. Who is correct?
A) The plaintiff, because the defendant did not timely object to a lack of jurisdiction.
B) The plaintiff, because the federal court may hear a removed case even though the state court from which the case was removed did not have jurisdiction.
C) The defendant, because if the state court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, then it could not have ordered removal.
D) The defendant, because the state court was required to dismiss the action upon finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.