in a' declaratory judgment action in which the resident plaintiff seeks a declaration of the defendant’s intellectual, property rights. This is precisely the situation in the present case. Hanson alleges no injury flowing from Con/ Span’s'purported Texas contacts, and thus, specific jurisdiction is improper. Id. In Hanson’s second argument, Hanson alleges that it “feels the effect” in Texas of the contracts it breached in other forums. Specifically, Hanson alleges “Hanson’s Texas headquarters did not realize the revenues from those contracts, and Hanson could be sued in Texas as a result of their breach.” These facts may have been sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in California, see Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), but in the Fifth Circuit, the rule is
holding under texas version of the recognition act that public policy exception is not triggered simply because the body of foreign law upon which the judgment is based is different from the law of the forum or because the foreign law is more favorable to the judgment creditor than the law of the forum holding that sliding scale used to evaluate internet contacts is still applicable in defamation case in spite of defamation cause of actions unique features concluding that sliding scale is compatible with the effects test of calder v jones  465 us 783 104 sct 1482 79 led2d 804 1984 for intentional torts and stating we must evaluate the extent of the interactivity between parties on internet bulletin board as well as appellants arguments with respect to colder holding that in the ninth circuit the effects test established in colder v jones 465 us 783 104 sct 1482 79 led2d 804 1984 is met when a foreign defendant does a wrongful act to a foreign resident without regard to whether the actual act is targeted at the forum holding that a foreign representative may assert under  804 only those avoiding powers vested in him by the law applicable to the foreign estate holding that the ninth circuit erred in granting habeas relief because the state courts decision was not an unreasonable application of strickland v washington 466 us 668 104 sct 2052 80 led2d 674 1984