a pat rly exercised over a foreign corporation”); see also PHC-Minden, 235 S.W.3d at 170; Foster, 2012 WL 170603, at *10 (“The fact that [defendant’s] officers, directors, and employees have occasionally visited Texas and the United States does not subject [defendant] to general jurisdiction.”). We must, however, consider these trips in the context of all of DENSO Japan’s contacts with Texas to determine if DENSO Japan had a general business presence in Texas. See Alenia Spazio, S.p.A. v. Reid, 130 S.W.3d 201, 219-20 (Tex.App t requiring Louisiana-licensed physicians (located in Texas) to provide teleradiology services for which nonresident defendant supplied the necessary equipment in exchange for $1600 per month did not support general jurisdiction); Reid, 130 S.W.3d at 217-18 (<HOLDING>). Constructing contracts to avoid benefiting
holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident guarantor of debt to texas creditor based only on sending a guaranty agreement to texas and discussing the general pattern of texas cases holding likewise 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 there was no general jurisdiction when there was no evidence that defendants advertised or promoted their goods or services in texas solicited business in texas sold their goods or services to a texas entity established a general business office or general business presence in texas or targeted texas markets 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 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