Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): operations within [the] state [are] thought so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities.” Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 318, 66 S.Ct. at 159. If the court determines that there are sufficient minimum contacts with the forum to support general jurisdiction over the defendant, the court still must determine whether the assertion of such jurisdiction is reasonable under the circumstances of the case. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 573 (2d Cir.1996) (“[Reasonableness inquiry is applicable to all questions of personal jurisdiction, general or specific.”). See also Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Propet USA, Inc., 62 Fed.Appx. 322, 337 (Fed. Cir.2003) (unpub. op.) (<HOLDING>). Therefore,-even where the defendant conducts 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that reasonableness analysis applies in general jurisdiction case under federal circuit law (B) holding that a similar motion to strike under california state law applies in federal court (C) holding that federal circuit would henceforth apply its own law rather than regional circuit law to questions involving the relationship between patent law and other federal and state law rights (D) holding that substantive admiralty law applies though suit was filed in federal court under diversity jurisdiction (E) holding title vii analysis applies in ada case
Output (English): holding that a similar motion to strike under california state law applies in federal court