through a “highly realistic” analysis that considers the assignee’s “prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the [assignment] and the parties’ actual course of dealing.” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479, 105 S.Ct. 2174. If the assignee has taken an interest in real property in .the district, or if the assignment was executed in the district, or if the assignee receives an income stream from the district, or other similar connections to the forum are present, then exercising personal jurisdiction over the assignee may be appropriate. Although the D.C. Circuit has not provided guidance on this issue, this conclusion is in accord with that in other circuits. See Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773, 784 (7th Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>). The Court thus turns to the connections
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 holding that the additional intrusion into a drivers personal liberty by an order to step out of the vehicle after having been stopped for a traffic violation is de minimus recognizing that personal jurisdiction of federal courts of course may be grounded in state longarm or other jurisdiction statutes in civil rico cases holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant because plaintiff failed to show that defendant was assignee of assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction holding that an assignee does not step automatically into the shoes of the assign or for purposes of personal jurisdiction and collecting cases