California, there was an insufficient basis for a California court to exercise in personam jurisdiction. Id. at 112-13. Four other Justices held that Asahi’s awareness that the ultimate product would be marketed in California did establish sufficient minimum contacts with California. Id. at 116-17 (Brennan, J., concurring in part). Even if mere awareness that a product will ultimately end up in Virginia coul e stream of commerce is not, by itself, sufficient to allow a federal district court to exercise in personam jurisdiction over nonresident manufacturers, in the absence of evidence that manufacturers “purposefully availed” themselves of the privilege of conducting business in the forum state. Id. at 658-660; see also Lesnick v. Hollingsworth & Vose Co., 35 F.3d 939 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Marketing and advertising within the forum
holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state holding that a defendants agreement that a substantial performance of contractual duties take place in the forum state is dispositive on whether defendant purposefully availed itself of that forum 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 phone and facsimile communications to the forum purchase orders and payments sent to the forum a choice of law clause within the contract regarding the forum state and delivery of the product within the forum state were not enough to satisfy minimum contacts recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties