state over a period that is reasonable under the circumstances — up to and including the date the suit was filed.” Metro. Life, 84 F.3d at 569. In building their case that Marward had continuous and systematic contacts with the United States, plaintiffs rely primarily on the Vladimir’s repeated visits to various ports on the Eastern Seaboard and the Gulf Coast, both before and after the Astrida sank. But the Supreme Court has read the Constitution to require, as a minimum prerequisite to the assertion of jurisdiction, “some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958) (emphasis added); see also International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 320, 66 S.Ct. 154 (<HOLDING>). The difficulty with plaintiffs’ reliance on
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 holding that thirteen business trips of short duration over eighteen months was not continuous and systematic solicitation of business in the state to justify general jurisdiction 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 recognizing general jurisdiction where availment is systematic and continuous