20 F.3d 644, 647 (5th Cir.1994); Ruston Gas Turbines, 9 F.3d at 418. The minimum contacts aspect of due process can be satisfied either by finding “specific jurisdiction” or “general jurisdiction.” See Wilson, 20 F.3d at 647. If the conduct of a defendant supports personal jurisdiction and is related to a stated cause of action, personal jurisdiction is known as “specific jurisdiction.” See Ruston Gas Turbines, 9 F.3d at 418-19. The minimum contacts prong for specific jurisdiction can be satisfied by a single act if the nonresident defendant “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefit and protection of its laws.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78
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 defendant must have created a substantial connection to the forum state by action purposefully directed toward the forum state or otherwise invoking the benefits and protections of the laws of the state holding that the defendant lacked sufficient contacts with the forum state because there was no evidence the defendant knew where the product would be sold holding that sufficient minimum contacts exist when nonresident defendant purposefully directed action toward texas 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