DENSO Japan has technical and license agreements with its United States subsidiaries, including DENSO Tennessee, which manufacture components that eventually are sold to Toyota. There is no evidence that DEN-SO Japan had a general business presence in Texas through its efforts to support any of its United States subsidiaries. See Reid, 130 S.W.3d at 220. Even when amassed, DENSO Japan’s contacts simply are not “continuous and systematic general business contacts” sufficient to support general jurisdiction. See PHC-Minden, 235 S.W.3d at 171. We conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the trial court’s implied finding that it could exercise general jurisdiction over DENSO Japan. See Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 416, 104 S.Ct. 1868; PHC-Minden, 235 S.W.3d at 170-71 (<HOLDING>); CSR, Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 595
holding that isolated trips to texas more than 1500000 in purchases from texas vendors and two contracts with texas entities were not substantial enough to support general jurisdiction holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident printing customer despite the fact that texas printer solicited the business in alabama and nonresident sent no personnel to texas because nonresident placed additional orders from which it expected to profit sent payments to texas sent and received printing materials to and from texas paid for shipping of printed goods from texas and sent payments to texas the transactions were governed by texas law and substantial part of performance occurred in texas holding sending two employees to work in texas and using an office in texas for limited purposes did not support finding of general jurisdiction holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied holding that jurisdiction existed over two georgia residents who leased a machine from a texas resident because they 1 solicited and negotiated the lease agreement by two telephone calls to texas 2 sent correspondence and payments by mail to texas 3 paid for the transfer of the machine from texas and 4 caused their insurance agent to contact the texas resident in texas to arrange coverage for the machine