and the Microtek entities each carry on substantial business activity in that district. MLI is incorporated in California, has its principal place of business in California, and has admitted to engaging in the allegedly infringing activities in California. MIDSDI has contested jurisdiction in this district because it does not engage in infringing activities anywhere in the United States and because it has no place of business in Virginia and engages in only insignificant Virginia sales activity, but MIDSDI admits that its secondary place of business is in the transferee district. MEI has two retail stores in California where it admittedly sells Image-Deck units. Because Mil has not yet been properly served, it suffices to note that, although 72, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (<HOLDING>). However, the record here establishes that
holding that a defendant establishes minimum contacts by purposely engaging in conduct directed toward the forum state such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there holding that minimum contacts exist if the defendant has purposely directed his activities at residents of the forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities holding that the court must look for continuous and systematic general business contacts  ie general jurisdiction  if the causes of action do not arise from or relate to the foreign defendants contacts with the forum state holding that sufficient minimum contacts exist when nonresident defendant purposefully directed action toward texas holding that an intentional tort knowingly directed at a forum resident satisfies the minimum contacts test