in themselves to establish minimum contacts,” Far West, 46 F.3d at 1077, the correspondence exchanged between Cameco and Mr. Benton during the negotiation of the MOU provides additional evidence that Cameco pursued a business relationship with a Colorado business. Even more significant to our minimum contacts analysis, Cameco sent several of its employees to Mr. Benton’s office in Colorado to conduct the due diligence review required by the MOU. Came-co not only established a business relationship with Mr. Benton’s Colorado-based company on paper, but it also sent representatives to Colorado, the forum state, in order to maintain and further that business relationship. Although the due diligence review would have not been enough, in isolation, to establish minimum contacts, it r 1283 (<HOLDING>). Rather, Cameco voluntarily conducted business
holding minimum contacts were necessary for personal jurisdiction over defendant holding that unilateral activity of a third party is not an appropriate consideration in determining what contacts are sufficient for personal jurisdiction purposes holding that personal jurisdiction over defendant car manufacturer was inappropriate when defendants only contacts with the forum resulted from plaintiffs unilateral activity of driving defendants product into another state holding that personal jurisdiction over defendant trustee was inappropriate when defendants only contacts with the forum resulted from plaintiffsettlors unilateral activity of moving to florida holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant where defendant assignee received patents from assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction in part because the unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state