an additional instance in which Cameco purposefully and knowingly availed itself of a business opportunity in Colorado. Cameco argues that Mr. Benton’s presence in Colorado is a mere coincidence that is inadequate to confer specific jurisdiction over Cameco. However, we do not agree that “[t]he quality and nature” of Cameco’s contact with Colorado was “so ... random, fortuitous, [and] attenuated that it cannot fairly be said that [Cameco] should reasonably anticipate being haled into court” in Colorado. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 486, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (citations and quotation marks omitted). This is not a case in which the defendant’s only contacts with the forum resulted from “the mere unilateral activity” of the plaintiff. See World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 298, 100 S.Ct. 559 (<HOLDING>); Hanson, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2
holding consumers unilateral act of taking product to forum state insufficient to subject manufacturer to jurisdiction there holding that unilateral activity of a third party is not an appropriate consideration in determining what contacts are sufficient for personal jurisdiction purposes holding that personal jurisdiction over defendant car manufacturer was inappropriate when defendants only contacts with the forum resulted from plaintiffs unilateral activity of driving defendants product into another state holding that personal jurisdiction over defendant trustee was inappropriate when defendants only contacts with the forum resulted from plaintiffsettlors unilateral activity of moving to florida holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant where defendant assignee received patents from assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction in part because the unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state