over defendants in the district would not violate due process). To that end, DTK strenuously asserts that it has made “significant sales” of its potentially infringing products to the customers of California. (Reply to PI. Opp’n to Mot. to Transfer at 3.) DTK also states that its sales area encompasses the Northern District of California, that DTK’s sales personnel travel to the Northern District of California on sales calls and customer relations trips, and that DTK advertises in local Northern California media. DTK’s assertion that it directs a great deal of marketing and sales toward the Northern District of California is sufficient to establish minimum contacts with the Northern District of California. See International Shoe Co., 326 U.S. 310, 318, 320, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (<HOLDING>); Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 472, 105 S.Ct.
holding that personal jurisdiction is proper if party has sufficient minimum contacts 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 mere ownership of property in north carolina is not sufficient to establish the necessary minimum contacts for purposes of general jurisdiction holding that under new jersey law any party that maintains minimum contacts with the  state that are continuous and substantial will be subject to personal jurisdiction holding minimum contacts were necessary for personal jurisdiction over defendant