cross-licensing agreement that allowed both companies to “design and sell semiconductors without dispute from each other.” DENSO Japan did not manufacture any products to sell to Texas Instruments. Trips to University. One employee of DENSO Japan traveled to a university in Texas to take an entrance exam, and one employee traveled to a university in Texas to conduct research. No other evidence was presented regarding these trips. We conclude that these trips, although numerous, do not demonstrate that DENSO Japan can fairly be regarded as being at home in Texas because the trips do not establish that DENSO Japan had a general business presence in Texas. See Brown, 131 S.Ct. at 2856 (citing Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 447-48, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952) (<HOLDING>), as “textbook case of general jurisdiction
holding that a maryland court could not exercise jurisdiction over an ohio lawyer when a maryland client initiated five of seven contacts with the lawyer the parties created the attorneyclient relationship in ohio and the attorneyclient relationship involved only events in and the law of ohio holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property holding over holding general jurisdiction existed over philippine company because its base of operations had been relocated to ohio during japanese occupation of the philippines holding that american subsidiary of a japanese parent had no treaty defense because the subsidiary was not a company of japan