Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp., 167 F.Supp.2d 692, 700 (D.Del.2001); see also LSI Indus. Inc. v. Hubbell Lighting, Inc., 232 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2000). 3 . The long-arm statute lists the subsection (c)(4) activities in the disjunctive, and the defendant need only engage in one for that subsection to apply. Power Integrations, Inc. v. BCD Semiconductor Corp., 547 F.Supp.2d 365, 374 (D.Del.2008) (citing LaNuova, 513 A.2d at 769). 4 . To the extent that plaintiff may be urging upon the court the theory that priests are never "off duty” (i.e., that priests do not really have personal lives and, therefore, the scope of their employment includes all of their conduct), that theory is rejected. See, e.g., Tichenor v. Archdiocese of New Orleans, 32 F.3d 953, 960 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Graham v. McGrath, 363 F.Supp.2d 1030,
holding that first amendment barred child victim of sexual abuse by priest from bringing negligent hiring and supervision claims but that first amendment would not be violated by adjudication of claim of intentional failure to supervise priest holding that first amendment barred child victim of sexual abuse by priest from bringing breach of fiduciary duty claim against priest church official and church holding that first amendment barred consideration of negligent supervision claim against diocese for sexual relationship between adult parishioner and priest while the priest was counseling the parishioner in his position as a hospital chaplain holding that illicit sexual pursuits of priest were not related to duties of priest and did not further any interests of the employer church holding that first amendment barred negligent supervision claim against a church regarding sexual relationship between adult parishioner and priest during the course of a marital counseling