and sells it all over the US, including Texas. Lonza, Inc. paid Blum’s salary, and supervised his work. Blum and other sales reps made periodic trips to Switzerland with U.S. customers to participate in marketing seminars and strategy sessions. The marketing strategy meetings Blum attended with Lonza, Inc. and affiliated entities’ sales personnel in Switzerland does not demonstrate substantial activities within Texas. First of all, the meetings were conducted in Switzerland and focused on global activities, including marketing to the United States. Even if these meetings had been held in Texas, the event would not provide the needed contacts to establish general jurisdiction absent evidence that the meetings purposefully targeted Texas consumers. See Michel, 45 S.W.3d at 672-73 (<HOLDING>). At that time, Blum sold products nationally,
holding that a passive website that merely makes information available is insufficient to confer general jurisdiction holding the plaintiffs general claim that both parties market their products over the internet was insufficient to establish that they used similar marketing channels holding that foreign corporate defendants purchases and attendant activity in state were insufficient to confer texas with general jurisdiction holding attending and marketing products at national trade show in texas insufficient to confer general jurisdiction holding that general jurisdiction did not exist where the defendant occasionally sold products to entities in texas that used the defendants products for projects in texas and the defendants employees made field visits to texas between december 1992 and december 1993