the operative facts related to acts that occurred outside the forum state); Counter Intelligence, Inc., 216 S.W.3d at 520 (noting the trial court erred in concluding that Texas could exercise specific jurisdiction over defendant where the alleged breach of contract arose out of Counter Intelligence’s conduct in Pennsylvania and Maryland, not Texas); Gustafson v. Provider HealthNet Servs., Inc., 118 S.W.3d 479, 484 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (noting that none of the contacts relied upon to establish specific jurisdiction were related to defendant’s execution of the confidentiality agreement or his dissemination of confidential information, both of which occurred in Michigan, not Texas); Lang v. Capital Res. Invs., I & II, LLC, 102 S.W.3d 861, 866 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, here Murray’s contacts are
holding that when determining whether a nonresident defendant has continuous and systematic contacts with texas sufficient to support general jurisdiction courts examine the defendants contacts and forumrelated activities only up to the time that suit was filed holding that the effects of a tortious act cannot subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction in a forum where no other contacts exist holding defendants ownership interest in texas company that was not party to lawsuit was not relevant to specific jurisdiction holding that specific jurisdiction requires plaintiff to show that defendants forum contacts be related directly to the subject of the lawsuit holding no specific jurisdiction where alleged tortious conduct was not related to defendants contacts with texas