Motor Components.” For both legal and evidentiary reasons, jurisdiction cannot be sustained on this basis. First, “stream-of-commerce analysis ‘is relevant only to the exercise of specific jurisdiction; it provides no basis for exercising general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.’ ” Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868, 874 (Tex.2010) (quoting Purdue Research Found, v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A, 338 F.3d 773, 788 (7th Cir.2003)). And although Devon produced some evidence that on February 19, 2010 — more than two months after Devon filed suit — -Motor Components’s website contained links to the websites of third-party retail stores in Texas where its products could be purchased, such evidence is not relevant to the jurisdictional inquiry. See PHC-Minden, 235 S.W.3d at 169 (<HOLDING>). Second, BAM and Motor Components produced
holding that when determining whether a nonresident defendant has continuous and systematic contacts with texas sufficient to support general jurisdiction courts examine the defendants contacts and forumrelated activities only up to the time that suit was filed recognizing general jurisdiction where availment is systematic and continuous holding that sufficient minimum contacts exist when nonresident defendant purposefully directed action toward texas holding that a ceos trip to the forum state to negotiate a services contract did not constitute the continuous and systematic general business contacts required to subject the corporation to general jurisdiction in the state holding that the court must look for continuous and systematic general business contacts  ie general jurisdiction  if the causes of action do not arise from or relate to the foreign defendants contacts with the forum state