Exp. Co., 556 F.2d 406, 422 (9th Cir.1977). The Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to meet this standard. Plaintiffs’ conclusory assertions notwithstanding, there is no evidence in the record that Biomeasure’s research activities in the Untied States are “necessary” to Ipsen’s operations or that Ipsen would have to perform them if Biomeasure did not. 3. Agency Although plaintiffs have not prevailed under the Dickson factors, they assert that the Court may nonetheless exercise jurisdiction over Ipsen and Ipsen Pharma because Biomeasure acts on their behalf, or as their agent. The Court rejects this argument for the same reasons stated above: plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Ipsen and Ipsen Pharma exercise sufficient control over Biomeasure. See Dickson, 179 F.3d at 338 (<HOLDING>). It is entirely appropriate for a wholly-owned
holding that because the appellant did not present to the administrative agency the argument it raised before this court the issue was not preserved and holding that even if preserved the argument failed holding that the appellees argument was waived because they had expressly abandoned the argument before the administrative agency holding that a party waives an argument if the party fails to elaborate or provide any citation of authority in support of the argument holding that it is the burden of the party who failed to preserve his argument to demonstrate plain error holding that plaintiffs agency argument fails because it cannot demonstrate that parent exercised control over subsidiary