*2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 24, 1996). Nonetheless, the three-part test is "to be considered in determining whether the requisite minimum contacts [are] present....” Id. 3 . There appears to be no dispute that there is no general jurisdiction over Defendant. Regardless, the Court need not address the issue of general jurisdiction here because it finds it has specific jurisdiction over Defendant. 4 . Claim .1 of -the ’511 Patent states in relevant part: A method of intercepting bed bugs between a leg of a [piece of furniture] and" a floor, comprising placing a bed bug intercepting device on the floor under the leg of the [piece of furniture] with a lower end of the leg received on a bottom wall of an inner most receptacle to provide a path for bed bugs departing fro d 56, 63 (D.P.R. 2012) (<HOLDING>); Orbit Irrigation Prod., Inc. v. Melnor, Inc.,
holding that the trial court violated the defendants allocution rights when the court in the defendants absence did not afford  defense counsel an opportunity to present information in mitigation of punishment holding that the district court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice of new allegations where the plaintiffs complaint gave the defendants no notice of the specific factual allegations presented for the first time in the plaintiffs opposition to summary judgment holding that defendant failed to allege any strategy which defense counsel used or failed to use because a third party had agreed to pay the legal fees holding that california defendants use of resellers did not afford the court specific jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to allege the resellers sold any of the infringing products in the relevant district holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction