2184, 85 L.Ed.2d at 542. A substantial connection is forged where the defendant either engages in significant activities in the State or creates continuing obligations with the State’s residents, thus taking advantage of the benefits and protections of Maryland law. Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 475-76, 105 S.Ct. at 2184, 85 L.Ed.2d at 543. “Designing [a] product for the market in the forum State, advertising in the forum State, establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum State, or marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum State” exemplify purposeful availment. See Asahi, 480 U.S. at 112, 107 S.Ct. at 1032, 94 L.Ed.2d at 104 (plurality opinion); see also, e.g., Wilson, 337 Md. 541, 654 A.2d 1324 (<HOLDING>); Mohamed, 279 Md. at 659, 370 A.2d at 554
holding that maryland law prohibits use of combined reporting holding that a maryland court could exercise jurisdiction over an outofstate hospital that provided services to maryland residents and registered as a maryland provider designating itself as a liver transplant referral center holding that the university of maryland law school was a state agency recognizing strictness of maryland rule in a diversity case holding that a maryland court could exercise jurisdiction over an outofstate real estate development company that scouted potential development sites in maryland and through its agents filed a building permit in the state and arranged for the washington suburban sanitation commission to install a storm drain