i i i i i i



### OPIN ION No s. 04 -0 9- 00 28 5- CV & 04 -0 9- 00 28 6- CV INNOVATIVE THERAPIES, INC .,

Appellant
v . KIN ETIC CONCEPTS, INC. , KCIL icensing , Inc., and K CIUSA, Inc., Appellee s Fr om the 408th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas Trial Court Nos. 2008-CI -00026 & 2008-CI -08912 Honora ble L arr y Noll, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: April 14, 2010 AFF I RMED I n this consolidated interlocutory appea l, I nnovative The rapie s, I nc. appe als the trial cour t’s order s denying its spec ial appea ranc es. Be cause the re cord de monstrates that Innovative The rapie s has jurisdictio n a ll y - me a

n in g f u l c ontacts with Texas and bec ause the exercise of persona l jurisdiction
ov e r i t in the un de rl ying su its wo uld no t vi olate c on sti tut ion a l gua ra nte e s o f s ub sta

nti ve du e pr oc e ss,
we a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s or de rs .04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

1 ... T h e V .A .C . w a s d e v e lo p e d to tre a t d iff ic u lt w o u n d s thr o u g h ne g a tive p re ssu re w o u n d the ra p y.

- 2- B ACKG ROUND I n Jan ua ry 20 08 , K ine ti c C o n c e p t s , I

n c . , K C I L i c e ns ing , Inc ., and

KC IUSA , Inc . ( c oll e c tiv e ly “KCI ”) sued Innovative The rapie s and three of its office rs, David Tume y , Richard Vog el, and Ma rk Me e nts , a lle g ingthat Inn ov a tiv e Th e ra pie s il le g a lly us e d kno wl e dg e of KC I ’s tr a de se c re ts t o c re a te
a “kn oc k- of

f” pr od uc t to c omp e te wi th o ne of KC I ’s signatur e me dic a l de vic e s, the Va c uumAssisted-Closure Sy stem (“V.A .C.”). 1 Alleg ations ag ainst Innovative Thera pies included cla ims of misap p r o p r iati o n an d th e f t o f tr a d e s e c r e ts , c o n v e r s io n , an d to rti o u s inte r f e r e n c e w it

h KCI ’s
c o n t r a c t s w i t hi t s c l i e n t s an d e mp l o ye e s . S e v e r a l m o n th s l a t e r , i nJ un e 2 0 0 8 , a f t e r s o m e d i s c o v e r

y, KCIfiled a second suit alleg ing the same c auses of action ag ainst I nnovative The rapie s and adding
a ne w d e fe nd ant, Dr . T iann ingXu , w ho wa s a pr inc ipa l eng ine e r of the V. A. C. fo r s ix y e ars wh ile employ ed at KCI

and who subseque ntly

assisted in d eveloping Innovative The rapie s’s competing pr od uc t. I nnovative The rapie s filed a spe cial appe ara nce in e ach of

KCI ’s two suits, while all of the individual defenda

nts entere d g ener al appe ara nces. A fter le ng thy

jurisdictional-related discover y
and a he ari ng , th e tr ia l c ourt

de nie d Inn ov a tiv e Th e ra

pie s’ s sp e c ia l a

pp e ara nc e s in b oth

c a se s. Th is consolidated interloc utory appea l followed. In thr ee issues, I nnovative The rapie s argues the trial court err ed in c oncluding that it is subject to persona l jurisdiction in Tex as, and a sserts it is entitl ed to dismi ssal of both suits. A PP LI C A BLE L AW Personal jurisdiction is a question of law. Retamc o Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co. , 278 S.W .3d 333, 337 (Tex. 2009). When the fac ts underlying the jurisdictional issue are undisputed,04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

2 ... See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C O D E A NN . § 17
. 04 2 ( V e r n on 20 08 ) ( pr ov i di n g t h a t a n on r e s i de n t “ do es bus i nes s ” i n T exa s i f i t ( 1) c ont r act s by mai l or ot her wi s e wi t h a T exa s r es i dent an d ei t her par t y i s t o perf orm t he cont r act i n w h ol e or i n par t i n T ex as , ( 2) c ommi t s a t or t i n w h ol e or i n pa r t i n T ex as , or ( 3) r ec r u i t s T ex as r es i den t s , di r ec t l y or t hrough an i nt erm ed i ary l o cat ed i n T exas, f o r emp l o y m ent i nsi d e o r out si d e T exas).

- 3- we r eview the trial court’ s determination de novo
. Id. Ho we ve r, the tr ia l c ourt mus t f re qu e ntl y resolve que stions of fact be fore deciding the jurisdictional question. BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marc hand , 8 3 S .W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. 2002). W hen a tr ial court doe s not issue findings of f act and conclusions of l aw with its specia l appea ranc e ruling, all fa cts nec essar y to support the judgme nt and supported by

the evidenc e a re i m p lied. Id. at 795. When the appe llate re cord inc ludes the repor ter’s a nd cler k’s re cords, these implied finding s are not conclusive a nd may be cha lleng ed for leg al and f

actua l sufficienc y . Id. Texas c o u rts ma

y e xe r c is e in p e r s o n am ju r is d ic ti o n o v e r a n o n r e s id e n t d e f e n d an t as authorized under the Texas long- arm statute, 2 provided the exercise of such perso n al j u ri sdiction meets fede ral and state c onstitut ional due proc ess guara ntees. Republic Drilling , 278 S.W .3d at 337; Moki MacRiver Ex

peditions v. Drugg , 221 S.W .3d 569, 574 (Tex. 2007). To meet constituti onal du e pr oc e ss gua

ra nte e s, the c ourt

mus t f ind that ( 1) the no nr e sid e nt d e fe nd ant h a s p ur po se fu lly availed itself of

the privileg e of c onducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benef its and protections of its laws, and (2 ) t he cour t’s asser tion of jurisdiction meets “traditional notions of fair play

and substantial justice.” Republic Drilling , 278 S.W .3d at 338. A nonre sident’s contac ts in the forum stat e ca n g ive rise to either specific or g ener al jurisdiction. BM

C So ftwa re , 83 S.W .3d at 795

. Gene ral jurisdiction arise s when the de fenda nt’s contac ts with the forum are continuous and sy stematic. Id. at 796. Specific jurisdiction ar ises when: (1) the de fenda

nt purposefully

avails itself of c ondu ct i n g activities in the forum state; a nd (2) the04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

- 4- cause of action arises from or is r elated to those contac ts or activities. Id. at 795. P urposef ul availment is the “touchstone of jurisdictional due proc ess,” be ing “ some ac t by which the defendant pu rp os e ful ly av ail s it s e lf o f th e p r iv il e g e o f c o n d u c ti n g a c ti v it ie s w it

h in th e f o r u m St a te, thus invoking the be nefits and pr otections of its laws.” Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v . Holten , 168 S
. W
. 3 d 7 7 7 , 7 8 4 (T ex . 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Ha ns on v . D e nc k la , 3 57 U. S. 2 35 , 2 53 (1 95 8) ); see Burge r King Cor p. v. Rudzewicz , 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985). For the purpose of

deter mining if a

nonresident defe ndant purposef

ully availed itself of

the privileg e of conducting activities in T exas, ( 1) only the defe ndant’ s co ntacts with the for um are rele vant, (2) the contac ts must be purposeful rather than
ra nd om, fo rt

uit ou s, or a tte nu a te d, and (3 ) the de fe nd ant mus t se e k s ome be ne fi t, a dv anta g e , o r p ro fi t by availingitself of the jurisdiction. Republic Drilling , 27 8 S.W. 3d at 3 38-3 9; Moki Mac , 221 S.W .3d at 575 (recog nizi ng there are three parts to a “purposeful availment” inquiry ). A nonre sident defe ndant ca

nnot be subjecte d to the jurisdiction of a Texas c ourt based on the unilatera l acts of a third party
. Michiana , 168 S .W .3 d at 78 5. Simi larl y , if a no nr e sid e nt d e fe nd ant’ s c on ta c ts w ith Texas are mere ly

random, for

tuitous, or attenuate d, it is notsubject to Texas jurisdiction. Id. Rather, the minimum-contacts ana ly sis focuses on the “quality and natur e of the defe ndant’s conta cts, rathe r than their number .” Republic Drilling , 278 S.W .3d at 3 3 9
. The nonre sident’s ac tiviti es, whe ther they consist of direc t acts within Te x as or conduct outside Texas, must justify a conc lusion that the defe ndant could re asonably anticipate be ing c alled into a Te x as cour t. BM C So ftwa re , 83 S.W .3d
a t 79 5; W

orld-W ide Volkswagen Corp. v. W oodson , 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). A nonresident de fe nd ant m ay

str uc tur e its tr ans a c tio ns so that it ne ith e r pr of

its fr om n or

ava ils its e lf

of the be ne fi ts of t he forum state’s laws in order to purposef ully avoid a pa

rticular f orum. Moki Mac , 221 S.W .3d at 575.04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

- 5- D I S CUS S I ON I nn ov a t i v e T h e r a p i e s c on te nd s th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in de nyingits sp e c ia l a

pp e ara nc e s b e c a us e it h a s n o c on sti tut ion a lly -c og niza ble c on ta c ts w ithTe xas t o s up po rt e ith e r g e ne ra l or

sp e c if ic jur isd ic tio n. I nn ov a tiv e Th e ra pie s st re sse s th a t it

str uc tur e d it s tr ans a c tio ns in a mann e r t o purposef ully avoid Texas, and that all of the contac ts cited in the trial cour t are littl e more than all e g a ti o n s th a t I n n o v a ti v e T h e r a p ie s d ir e c te d a to rt to T e xa s w h ic h is in s u f f ic ie n t to s u

p p ort an exercise of

jurisdiction under Texas Supreme Court pre ced en t
. KC Icounter s that I nnovative Thera pies’s contacts in Texas g ive rise to both specific and g ener al jurisdiction. We will begin our analy sis by examining KCI ’s claim that Innovative The rapie s’s ac tions in contacting , rec ruiting, a nd employing Xu, a Tex as resident, are sufficie nt, standing alone, to support the l eg al conclusion that I nnovative The rapie s is subject to specific jurisdiction in a Te x as cour t. I. P R O O F S UB M I T T E D I N S U PPOR T O F S P E CI F I C J URI S DI CT I ON A . Inn ovative T

herapies, Inc. I n n o v ati ve The rapie s is a Delaw are corpor ation founded by Ri c h ar d V o g e l an d D r . Paul Svedman, alongwith others, to rese arc h, develop, a nd produce thera

pies in the field of patient wound
c are . Its s ole pla c e of

bu sin e ss i s G a ith e rs burg , M ary land . I t ha s n e ith e r e mpl oy e e s n or pr op e rt y in Texas, and does not have a re g istered ag ent for service in T exas. Three of its founders a nd orig inal office rs, Vog el, Tumey , and Mee nts, had all previously been employ ed by KCIat its principal place of business i n S an An t o n io, Texas. Voge l, the curr ent Chief Executive Off icer of Innovative Thera pies, serve d as a Vice President and Ex ecutive Commi ttee member of KCI ; Tumey , the cur rent Chief Tec hnology

Offic er of

I nnovative The rapie s, serve d as Dire ctor o f KCI ’s Resea rch a nd Deve lopment Depar

tment, during which time he mana g ed the de velopment of the V. A. C
. ; and04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

3 ... V o gel , T um ey, and M eent s had al so si gned nearl y i d ent i cal C o nf i d ent i al i t y A greem ent s when hi red b y K C I.

- 6- Meents, the Chief O perating Of fice r of Innovative The rapie s, worked a s Vice Pre sident of Sales Administration and New T echnolog ies for K CI
. Relevant to this liti g ation, I nnovative Therapies set out to develop a ne g ative pre ssure wound the ra py de vic e ba se d u

po n D r. Pa

ul S ve dma

n’ s w or k in wo un d tr e a tme nt. Dr . Sv e dma n is a pla sti c and re constructive sur g eon, inventor, a nd profe ssor of medicine . A third-par ty vendor hire d by I nnovative The rapie s initi ally develope d a protot

y p e for the Svedman Wound Treatment Sy stem (the

“ Sve dma n d e vic e ” ). Af

te r T ume y

joi ne d th e c omp any

in S e pte mbe r 2 00 6, he su pe rv ise d e ff

or ts t o improve the prototy

pe. The Svedman device is an alternative to the V.A.C., a wound the rapy device marke ted and sold by KCI
. I nnovative The rapie s has a state d corpor ate policy that forbids marke ting or selling the Svedman devic e to users in Te x as. B. D r. Xu Dr. TianningXu worke d in the Resear ch and Deve lopment D epar tment at KCIfrom 1997
un til Janu ary

20 06 , s ix y e ars of

that ti me a s a

pr inc ipa l e ng ine e r o n th e V. A. C. D ur inghis employ ment at KCI , Xu knew Vog el, Tum ey , and Meents. In fac t, Xu re ported dire ctly to Tumey while servingas principa l eng ineer on the V.A.C. Xu left KCI in J anuar y 2006 and continued to live in San Antonio from J anuar y 2006 to May

2007, at which time he r elocated to Atlanta, Ge org ia. Af te r h e le ft KC I , Dr. Xu ini tia lly we nt t o w or

k f or a KC Ic omp e tit or , B lue Sky Me dic a l, located in San Antonio, fr om J anuar y 2006 until S eptember

2006. Once he left KCI , Xu was subjec t to the terms of a

n on-g oing non- disclosure ag ree ment with K CI that, amongother thing s, prohibited X u f r o m s h ar i n g c o n f

i d e n t i a l i n f

o r m a t i o nl e ar

n e d w h i l e e mp l o y e d

b y K C I. 3 An a ssi g nme nt c la us e04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

4 ... V og el s t at ed i n h i s de pos i t i on , “ M y i s s u es w er e appr i s i n g [ X u ] of t h e v en t u r e an d g et t i ng h i m t o s t op work i ng f

or a comp et i t or; i n ot her wor ds, B l ue Sky
. ” V ogel expl ai ned, “I jus t l ai d out cert ai n–y ou know, t he vi s i on, wh at we woul d l i ke t o do, wor ki ng t oget her as a t eam. And he had ot her t hi ng s t hat he was wor ki ng on t hat he al s o want ed t o p urs ue, a nd he thought thi s m i ght b e a go o d o p p o rt uni t y to d o t hat
. . . So i t was a matt er of t al ki ng, t al ki ng and m o re t al ki ng , an d f

i nal l y he deci ded B l ue Sky was not wh er e h e wa nt ed t o be l ong- t er m. ”

- 7- provided that a

ny invention developed by

Xu during t h e t h re e- y ear period a fter he left KCI

was owned by KCI
. C. I nnov ativ eThe ra

pie s a nd D r. Xu On September 3 or 4, 2006, Vog el, acting on behalf of Innovative The rapie s, contac ted Xu by telephone in San Antonio. At the tim e of the i nitial phone conversation, Voge l knew Dr . Xu’s work a s an eng ineer

from their time tog ether

at KCI . He a lso kne w Xu wa s curr ently employ ed by Blue Sky but denied knowinghe wa s located in San Antonio. During that first conver sation, Vog el dis c us se d w anti ngXu

to l e ave B lue Sky and

he lp d e ve lop the Sve dma n p ro tot y pe fo r F DAa

pp ro va l. They also discussed the f

act that wor

king w ith I nnovative Th er ap i es m i ght cre ate a conflict of interest with B lueSky

beca use both en t i t i es we re w orking on neg ative pre ssure wound the rapy device s. Xu mentioned to V og el that he would have to r esig n from Blue Sky in order to do wor k for I nnovative The rapie s. At the conc lusion of the conver sation, Xu ag ree d to g o to Maryland to meet with Vog el and Tume y

and to inspect the pr ototy

pe. Vog el admitted in his deposition t hat he wa nted to “pry [Xu] awa

y from B lue Sky ” in the fa ll of 2006. 4 Soon after that initi al phone contac t, at V og el’s invitation, Xu tra veled to Mar

yland and met with V og el and others from I nnovative Thera pies. Xu spent two to thr ee h o u rs wi t h T u m ey discussing how they would work on improvingthe prototy pe tog ether

–what par t Xu would do, and what part Tumey

would do. Acc ording to his deposition, based on his discussions wit h Tumey , Xu understood that if he acc epted the job, he would be wor king on the elec tronics components of the04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

5 ... X u ’s d e p o sitio n c o n ta ins the fo llo w ing e x c h a n g e a b o u t X u ’s m e e ting w ith T u m e y d u rin g his in iti a l visit t o M ar y l an d:

Q : T el l me wha t y ou an d M r . T umey di s cus s ed about t he I T I devi ce. A : W e i ns pect – i ns pect ed t he prot ot y pe. Q : And d i d y ou di s cus s wh at wor k y ou coul d do on t he I T I devi ce? A: W e di s cu s s ed wh at w or k w e n ee d t o do. Q : A nd – and was t here a d i scus si o n ab o ut what p art o f t he wo rk y o u wo ul d do and what pa rt of t he wor k M r . T u mey w ou l d do? A : I b e liev e so . 6 ... O n t h e s ame da y X u be g an w or k i n g a s a c on s u l t an t on t h e Sv edma n de v i ce , h e al s o s t ar t ed w or k i n g f or Vo g e l a n d Tu m e y o n a n e w h a p t i c d e v i c e b e i n g d e v e l o p e d b y o n e o f t h e i r o t h e r c o m p a n i e s , I m m e r s i o n M e d i c a l
. Xu c o n tinu e d to w o rk o n Im m e rs io n M e d ic a l’s d e v ic e fro m S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 6 thr o u g h M a y o r J u n e 2 0 0 8 . X u w a s p a id $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 in 2 0 0 6 , an d $ 1 8 0 ,0 0 0 in 2 0 0 7 b y Im m e rs io n M e d ic a l.

- 8- device and Tumey

woul d simult aneously

be wor king on othe r par

ts of the device
. 5 Innovative Thera pies reimburse d Xu for a ll of his travel expenses fr om San Antonio to Maryland. Shortly there afte r, on September 15, 2006, Xu resigne d from his paid position with BlueSky and bega n to work for I nnovative Therapies on its S vedman pr ototy pe. 6 For approximately

seven months, from September 2006 to May 2007, Xu “did some wor

k to rede sign [the] prototy pe, existi ng prototy pe, [to] make it more in li ne with medica l device guideline [sic] so that it [ could] be approve d by the FD A.” At Innovative The rapie s’s reque st, Xu desig ned a printed circ uit board prototy pe and wrote a softwar e code for the protot y pe at his home i n San Antonio. During this period, Vog el and Tume y ha d on -g oin g dis c us sio ns wi th Xu in Te xas b y te le ph on e on c e or

tw ic e a we e k a bo ut t he ir prog ress on th e p rototy

pe modifications. Xu reporte d to Vog el and Tume y about the ele ctronics work he was doingon the prototy pe. In addition, Vog el and Tumey corr esponded w ith Xu about the de vic e us inge ma ils . A t Inn ov a tiv e Th e ra pie s’ s r e qu e st a

nd e xpe ns e, Xu trave le d to Mary land to meet with Tumey , Vo gel , and Mee nts on five or six occasions. Whil e in Texas, with I nnovative Thera pies’s appr o v al , Xu p urcha sed compone nt parts for the prototy pe and built a ne w prototy pe de vic e a t hi s h ome in S an Ant on io. Xu de liv e re d the dr awi ng of the pr int e d c ir c uit

bo ard by e -m a il04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

- 9- to T ume y a t Inn ov a tiv e Th e ra

pie s in Janu ary or F e br

ua ry 20 07 , a nd de liv e re d th e so ft

wa re c od e to Tumey b y em ail in May or June 2007. Subs equently , Innovative The rapie s incorporated Xu’s improvements into the device , and re ceive d Food a nd DrugAdministration approval to marke t the Svedman device
. Xu cha rac terized his positi on as a “ consultant” a nd testified that h i s wo rk for Innovative Thera pies amounted to only

three to f ive perc ent of his total work time, and he rec eived no moneta ry compensation from I nnovative The rapie s while he re sided in Texas. I n October 2007, howeve r, af

ter he re loc a te d to At lanta , Xu r e c e ive d s ha re s o f I nn ov a tiv e Th e ra

pie s’ s st oc k a s c omp e ns a tio n f or his work on the Svedman prototy pe. I nnovative Thera

pies also reimburse d Xu for his tra vel expenses and his out-of-poc ket expenses incurr ed for his work on the Svedman pr ototy pe while in Te x as. II . A PPLI C A TIO N O F L AW T O F A C TS A. T e xa s L ong -A rm Stat

ute Un de r t he Te xas lon g -a

rm statut e , a nonre sid e nt “d oe s busi ne ss” in T e xas whe n it re c ru its Texas residents, direc tly

or throug h an interme diary located in T ex as, for

employ ment inside or outside Texas. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 17.042(3) ( Ver non 2008). As an ini t ial matter, we note I nnovative Therapies argues t hat Xu was not an e mploy ee of , and wa s not paid or compensated by , I nnovative The rapie s during the time that he was in Texas. Base d on the re cord, ho weve r, we dis a g re e . It is vir tua lly un dis pute d th a t V og e l, o n b e ha lf of Inn ov a tiv e Th e ra

pie s, actively rec ruited Xu to leave his we l l -p ay i n g j o b at B lueSky in order to wor

k on the Svedman prototy pe. The rea fter, I

nnovative The rapie s reimbursed Xu for a ll ex penses a nd costs associate d with b o t h component par ts and trave l nece ssary

to completing his wor

k. Ultimately , Xu re ceive d 2% stock owner ship in I nnovative Thera pies which he testified was in exchang e for the work he had04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

- 10- do ne on the Sve dma

n d e vic e . We c on c lud e the re is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e to support the trial cour

t’s implied finding that I nnovative The rapie s rec ruited Xu to wo rk on the Svedman device and compe nsated him for that work. Se e BM C So ftwa re , 83 S.W .3d at 795 (whe n trial court doe s not issue findings of fac t, all fac ts nece ssary to support the ruling and supported by the evidenc e ar e im plied). According ly , under the Texas long- arm statute, Innovative The rapie s’s action of r ecr

uiting Xu to wor

k on the Svedman prototy pe is define d as an a ct constituting doing business in this s tate. SeeT EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 17.042(3); see also More n o v. Pove rty Point Produce, I nc. , 24 3 F. R. D. 26 5, 27 1 ( S.D . T e x. 20 07 ) ( Te xas h a s an inte re st in enforc ing the provision of its long-a rm statute that spec i fica lly subjects nonre sidents who
re c ru it T e xas r e sid e nts to p e rs on a l juri sd ic tio n in Te xas) ; Gonsalez Moreno v . Milk Train, Inc. , 182 F. S u p p . 2 d 5 9 0 , 5 9 4 -9 5 (W
. D. T ex . 2 0 0 2 ) ( j u r i s d i ct i o np ro p er

wh er e d ef

en d an t , th ro u gh intermediar

y , rec ruited Texas r esidents to work in Ne w York a nd reimburse d their trave l expenses). Of c ou rs e , f or jur isd ic tio na l purp os e s, the Te xas lon g -a rm statut e re a c he s on ly

a s f ar a s d ue pr oc e ss g uara ntees a llow. There fore , we next deter mine whether

Innovative The rapie s’s contac ts with Xu in T e xas s a ti s f

y the purp os e fu l ava ilm e nt r e qu ir e me nt o f t he du e pr oc e ss m ini mum

c on ta c ts a

na ly sis
. Republic Drilling , 2 78 S.W. 3d a t 33 7; Moki Mac , 221 S.W .3d at 574. B. D ue Proc ess A nal

y sis I n conducting a due proce ss analy sis, the relevant i nquiries ar e whe ther (1) the nonre sident defe ndant has purpose fully availed itself of

the privi leg e of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the be nefits and pr otections o f its laws, and (2) the cour t’s asser tion of jurisdiction meets “tra ditional notions of fa ir play and substantial justice.” Republic Drilling , 27804
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

- 11- S.W .3d at 338. We begi n b y consideringwhether

Innovative The rapie s’s contac ts with Tex as constitute purposeful availment. 1. Pur po se fu lly Av ail e d I tse lf of the For um As noted, su

pra , a p u rp oseful ava ilment analy sis considers (i) only the conduc t of the nonresident defe ndant, (ii) whethe r the de fenda nt’s contac ts with the forum wer e purpose ful, rathe r than random, fortuitous, or attenuated, and (iii) whether the defendant sought a be nefit, adva ntag e, or prof it by availingitself of the jurisdiction. Moki Mac , 221 S.W .3d a t 57 5. In a pp lyingthi s analy sis, we foc us on the nature and the qua lity of Innovative The rapie s’s contac ts with Tex as, not the number of

contac ts. Republic Drilling , 278 S.W .3d at 339. B a se d o n th is re c or d, we c on c lud e that Inn ov a tiv e Th e ra pie s h a s p ur

po se fu lly ava ile d it se lf of the privileg e of c onducting activities within Texas, thus invoking the benef its a nd protec tions of its laws. V og el, who was awa re of Xu’s pa

rticular e ng ineer ing skills from their pr evious association, ini tiate d c on ta c t w ithXu , a Te xas re sid e nt. Vo g e l, on be ha lf of I nn ov a tiv e Th e ra

pie s p ur po se fu lly
s e to u tt o a

p p r i s e X u o f

t h e v e n tu r e an d

p e r s u a d e h i mt o s t o p w o r k i n g f o r a c o mp e t i t o r , B l u e S ky. Al tho ug h V og e l st ate d he di d no t kn owwh e re Xu wa s lo c a te d w he n h e ma de that in iti a l c on ta c t, Vog el ce rtainly

beca me awa re that Xu was located in Texas afte r Xu a g ree d to travel to Mar yland
and loo k at th e de vic e , a trip pa id fo r by Inn ov a tiv e Th e ra pie s. B a se d o n th e ir

ini tia l c on ta c ts w ith him, Voge l and Tumey

convince d Xu to stop working for a competitor and j o i n the Innovative Th e ra pie s “ te am” to d e ve lop the ini tia l pr oto ty pe int o a pr od uc t. Th e re a ft e r, fr om Se pte mbe r 20 06 thr ou g h M ay 20 07 , V og e l, T ume y , a

nd Xu pa rt ic ipate d in confe renc e calls once to twic e a wee k with Xu repor ting on his prog ress in re desig ning the prototy pe t o c o mp l y w i t h m e d i c a l d e v i c e r u l e s an d g u i d e l i n e s . O v e r th i s s e v e n - m o n thp e r i o d , V o g e l , T u m e y,04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

- 12- and Xu discusse d the produc t f eatur es and chang es by

telephone a

nd in email exchang es to and fr om Xu in San Antonio. Fur

ther, I nnovative The rapie s incorporated Xu’s wor k on the circ uit board and the softwar e code into the final product, ult imately rec eiving FDAapprova l. I nnovative The rapie s paid Xu’ s ex p en s es and his out-of-poc ket expenses for pr oducts he purc hased in Te x as that we re
nece ssary for his work on the Svedman device . Moreove r, Innovative Therapies ulti mately awa rded Xu owner ship in the company for the w ork he had done while i n Texas. Although it may not market the Svedman devic e to us ers in Texas, I nnovative The rapie s cer tainly intends to benefit fr om Xu’s work pe rfor

med in Texas with the s ale of the Svedman devic e outside of Te x as. More over, I nnovative The rapie s was we ll awar e of the risk of l itigation by KCI in Texas based on the launch of its Sve dma

n de vic e . Tume y te sti fi e d that he pla c e d pho ne c a lls to two fo rm e r c oll e a g ue s at K CI
onth e e v e o f

th e la u n c hto a s s e s s w h e th e r

a w o r k in g r e lati o n s h ip b e tw e e nth e c o mp an ie s w as po ssi ble and , a lte rn a tiv e ly , to a sse ss t he ri sk of lit ig a tio n by KC I
. B a se d o n th e thr e e -p art ana ly sis for pur poseful ava ilment, we conc lude that Innovative The rapie s ’s contac ts with Tex as we re purposef ul—not random, fortuitous or attenuated, and wer e direc ted at see king a benef it, advantag e, or prof it by availingitself of the jurisdiction. Republic Drilling , 278 S.W .3d at 339. I nnovative The rapie s prese nts severa l arguments in support of its positi on that it did not purp os e fu lly

ava il i tse lf

of Te xas j ur isd ic tio n. We wi ll add re ss e a c h a

rgume nt i n tu

rn . F ir st, I nnovative The rapie s argues spec ific per sonal jurisdiction fails beca use a l l o f the “ contac ts” cited in the t rial c o u rt a

r e li tt le mo r e th ana ll e g a ti o n s th a t I n n o v a ti v e T h e r a

p ie s d ir e c te d

a to rt t o T exas wh ic h is ins uf

fi c ie nt to s up po rt

an e xer c ise of

jur isd ic tio n und e r T e xas S up re me Court pr e c e de nt. See M ichiana , 168 S.W .3d at 790-91. Michiana involved a sing le commer cial tra nsaction initiated from Te x as by

a Te x as re sident via telephone to a nonresident se ller of r ecr eational ve hicles. Id . at04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

7 ... T he Sup rem e C o urt l at er not ed i n M oki M ac , “ [i ]n M i c h i ana , w e w a rn e d a gai nst t he d angers o f t he p l ai nt i f f ’ s p l ead i ngs d ri vi ng t he anal y si s, s t at i ng t hat s uch an ap p roac h ‘ shi f t s a co urt ’ s f

o cus f rom the r el at i o nshi p am o ng t he de fen dant , t he f

oru m, an d t he l i t i gat i on t o t he r el at i ons hi p amo ng t he plai nti ff , t he f oru m . . . an d l i t i gat i on. ’ ” M oki M ac , 2 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 5 8 3 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ).

- 13- 784. S o m et i m e af

ter the pur chase , the buy er br oug ht suit aga inst the nonresident seller claiming DTPA violations, common law fra ud, brea ch of war

ranty , and brea ch of contra ct based on alleg ed misrepre sentations made in the tele phone ca ll. Id. The Michiana co urt u l t i m at el y h el d th at , al th o u gh alleg ations that a tort was c ommitt ed in Texas do satisfy the Texas long -ar m statute, such alleg ations alone a re not suff icient t o satisfy the purposeful availment requirement of the due proc ess minimum contac ts analy sis. Id. at 788-792. The Court rea soned that foc using on whether the def endant dir e c te d a tor

t towa rd Te xas a s a

ba sis fo r j ur isd ic tio n im

pr op e rl y fo c us e s o n th e me ri ts o f t

he laws uit rathe r than the de fenda

nt’s contac ts with th e fo rum state. Id. at 790-91. 7 The Court instead emphasized that it is “the de fenda nt’s conduct a

nd connec tion with the forum that are critica l.” Id. “[M] inimum-contacts ana ly sis focuses solely on the a ct i o n s and re asonable expectations of the defe ndant.” Id. at 790

. We ag ree with the rea soning a nd holding in Michiana , bu t di sagre e wi th I nnovative The rapie s’s basic pr emise that all of the “ contac ts” cited in the trial court a re little more than alleg ations that I nnovative Therapies directed a tort to Texas. I nstead, Innovative The rapie s eng ag ed in purposef

ul acts direc ted at Te x as and involving a Te x as re sident. S e c o n d , In n o v a t i v e T h e r a p i e s ar g u e s a

c a s e w i ths i m i l ar

f a c t s , an d h e av i l y r e l i e d o nb y K C I, Nog le & Blac k

Av iat ion , I

nc . v . F av e re tto , 290 S.W .3d 277 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2009, no pet.), is incorr ect. In Nog le , the court found specific jurisdiction, holding that a n on-re sident de fe nd ant c omp any

purp os e fu lly

ava ile d itsel f of

the be ne fi ts a

nd pr ivi le g e s o f d oin g bu sin e ss i n Texas by employing a Texas e ng ineer to do desig n work whic h was pe rfor med in Texas. Id. at 283-04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

- 14- 85. I n Nog le , the c ourt he ld that the c omp any ’s c on ta c ts in Te xas we re purp os e fu l, in p art be c a us e the company

specific ally

chose t h at p ar t i cu lar e ng ineer for the pr oject bec ause it “liked his wor k best.” Id. at 283. The c ourt went on to note,

Even thoug h N & B ma

y have ma de some such choices, such as not locating any e mpl oy e e s o r o ff

ic e s in Te xas a nd no t ta rg e tin g the Te xas mark e t, it sp e c if ic a lly chose to use the work of this Te x as resident. That work w as per formed in Te x as, N & B us e d it in co mpl e tin g its AM OC , an d N & B ma de mon e y do ingso wh e n it so ld the AMOC to T-34 owne rs. Id. Simi larly , I nnovative Thera pies purposef

ully avoided establishing an office in T ex as and targ e tin g the Te xas m ark e t, whil e sp e c if ic a lly re c ru iti ng a pa

rt ic ula r Te xas re sid e nt to wor

k on it s prot o ty p e b e c a u s e h e w a s th e b e s t p e r s o n f o r th e jo b
. In n o v a ti v e T h e r a p ie s , li k e N o g le & Bla ck, obtained appr oval of its device based on D r. Xu’s w ork, an d certainly intends to profit from sales
o f t h e ap p ro v edS v ed m an d ev i ce . M o re o v er , In n o v a t i v e T h e r ap i es wa s aw ar e t h at b y ch o o s i n g a former KCI eng ineer to work on its competitive device, i t was riskinglitigation with KCI . I n Nog le , the cour t noted that litigation was f orese eable when the nonr esident compa ny chose to use a

Texas eng ineer doing w ork in Texas to assist with the desig n of the proje ct. See id. ; see also GJ P, Inc. v

. Gh os h , 2 5 1 S
. W
. 3 d

8 5 4 , 8 8 0 ( T e x. Ap p . —

A u s t i n2 0 0 8 , n o p e t
. ) ( n o t i n g n o n r e s i d e n td e f e nd a nts controlled whether transaction occ urre d in Texas and that “it is not unreasona ble or une x pecte d that they might be ha iled into court here in reg ard to c laims arising from that ac tivity ”). At or a l argume nt, c ouns e l f or Inn ov a tiv e Th e ra

pie s a sse rt e d th a t Nog le “ d o e s n ot square with” exist ing pr ece dent by the Unit ed S tates S upreme Court, Texas Supreme Court, and this Court beca use it focuse d solely

on one conta ct, i.e. , the hiring of a Texas e ng ineer , in f inding pur

poseful availment. See B urger King , 4 71 U. S. at 478 -7 9 (si ng le c on tr a c t w itha re sid e nt o f t

he fo rum st a te is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o e sta

bli shjur isd ic tio n w ith out a dd iti on a l c on ta c ts) ; Moki Mac , 221 S.W .3d at 57704
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

- 15- (sing le contac t cannot support jurisdiction wher e it cre ates o n l y an attenuated af filiation with the fo rum st a te ); see also Credit Commercial de France , S.A. v. Morale

s , 1 9 5 S. W. 3 d

2 0 9 , 2 2 0
- 2 1 ( T e x. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. denied) (mere ly contra cti ng with a re sident of the for um state, or
e ng a g ingin c omm

un ic a tio ns duri ngpe rf

or manc e of the c on tr a c t, i s in su ff

ic ient to sub

je c t a
no nr e sid e nt t o th e fo rum’ s juri sd ic tio n) ; Tabor, Chhabr a & Gi bbs, P.A. v. Me dical Legal Evaluations, Inc. , 237 S.W .3d 7 6 2 , 772-73 (Te x . App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (intermedia

ry ’s hiring of Texas doctor a s expert witness for law firm di d not subject nonreside nt law fi rm to T e xas j ur isd ic tio n) . Inn ov a tiv e Th e ra pie s argue s th a t Nog le is wr on g be c a us e it is a “ sin g le
c o n t a c tc a s e , ” an d

w e s h o u l d i n s t e a d f

o l l o w th e l i n e o f

c a s e s e x e mp l i f

i e d b y Credit Commercial

and Tab or in holding that the “ single contac t” of e ng ag ing X u to work on the prototy

pe does not subject I nnovative The rapie s to Texas jurisdi ction. We d isa g re e tha

t Nog le based its finding of purpose ful ava ilment on a sing le contac t betwee n the nonre sident company

and Te x as. To the c ontrary , in Nog le , th e c ourt a c kn ow le dg e d th a t me re ly
c on tr a c tin g wi th a Tex as r e sid e nt i s n ot a lon e su ff ic ie nt t o s ho w p ur

po se fu l c on ta c t w ithTe xas. Nog le , 2 9 0 S
. W
. 3 d

at 2 8 3 (c i t i n g Olympia C

apital Associates, L .P. v. J ackson , 247 S.W .3d 399, 417 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pe t.)). The court stre ssed “other fac tors abo u t t h e natur e of the relationship” as more important, such as the fa ct that the eng ineer perf ormed the w ork in Texas, he did no t un ilate ra lly

ini tiate the re latio ns hip but wa s spe c if ic a lly c ho se n by No g le & B la c k, and his work wa s used to complete the pr oduct which was sold for a profit. Id. The c ourt furthe r noted that it w a s “ no t unre a so na

ble to expe c t that the c ho ic e to use a Te xas e ng ine e r d oin g wo rk in T e xas t o
a ssi st w iththe de sig n o f a wi ngsp ar mo di fi cat io n cou ld l e a d to lit ig a tio n in Te xas f or a c la im relating to a w ing spa

r fa ilure.” Id. The c ourt’s conc lusion that Nogle & B lack’ s use of the Te x as04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

- 16- e ng ine e r’ s se rv ic e s amo un te d to purp os e fu l c on ta c t w ithTe xas w a s b a se d o n a ll o f t he se re a so ns , not on the single fac tor of a c ontrac t with a Texas resident. See id. I nnovative The rapie s argues that we shoul d i n s t ea d apply the re asoning of Tabor

to the instant case. I

n Tabor , th e Ho us ton

Cou rt of Ap pe a ls, F ir st Di st ri ct, d e c lin e d to fi nd sp e c if ic jurisdiction over an out-of -st at e l aw fi rm and its partner that contra cted with an inter mediary company which re fer

red a doctor who ha p p en ed to be in Te x as as a n expert witness. Tabor , 237 S.W .3d at 772-78. The court found the nonresident law firm did not pur posefully avail itself of the privileg e of c onducting activities in Texas b ec au s e it did not enter into a c ontrac t with the Texas phy sician, and, e ven if the phy sician was a thi rd-pa rty benef iciary of t he contr act be tween the law firm and the inter

mediary company , the contra ct was ne ither executed in nor re q u ired to be perf ormed in Texas. Id. at 773-74. F urther, the court found the re was no evidenc e of r ecr uitment of this particular

Texas phy sician to be the e x pert–many differ ent doctors c ould have se rved a s the expert witness; it was mere ly fortuitous that the doctor who w as selec ted by the intermedia

ry company happene d to reside in Te x as, and thus the r ecr uitment alleg ations would not support specific jurisdiction. Id. at 777. Tabor is disti ng uishable fr om the instant case on that very basis–the d e f e n d an ts in T

a bor did not specifica lly

seek out a

nd rec ruit the particula

r Texas phy sician for employ ment, as Innovative The rapie s did with Dr. Xu. See id. F ina lly , Inn ov a tiv e Th e ra

pie s r e lie s o n tw o p ri or

c a se s in wh ic h this Court state d th a t me re ly contra cting with a Texas resident, and ha ving c ommunications incidental to the contra ct, does not subje c t t h e nonre sident to Texas jurisdi ction. See Credit Commercial , 1 95 S.W. 3d a t 22 0- 21 (m e re ly contra cting with r esident of the forum state, and eng ag ing in c ommunications during pe rfor mance of c on tr a c t, i s in su ff

ic ie nt to s ub

je c t no nr e sid e nt t o f

or um’ s ju ri sd ic tio n) ; see also Magnolia Gas Co.04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

- 17- v. K night Equip. & Mfg. Corp. , 994 S.W .2d 684, 691 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998), abrogated
on other grounds, BMC Softwar e Be lgium, N.V. v. Marchand , 83 S.W .3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (same ). We a c kn ow le dg e thi s w e ll- e sta bli sh e d r ule . T he tw o Sa

n A nto nio c a se s a

re, h oweve r, fa c tua lly distinguishable f

rom the instant case. In Credit Commercial , we he ld that Texas could not assert specific jurisdiction over a F renc h bank, its subsidiary , and a B ahamian ba nk beca use they had no fac iliti es, per sonnel, or asse ts in Tex as, structu re d t heir business tra nsactions to avoid Texas jurisdiction, the contrac ts were perf ormed outsi de Te x as, the c ommunications during the four- y ear period we re re m o t e and relate d solely to the rec eipt of funds, a nd any visits by office rs wer e incidental and mor e in the natur e of a social visit. Credit Commercial , 1 9 5 S
. W
. 3 d a t2 2 0
- 2 3
. In Magnolia Gas , we held the defendants did not purposef ully avail themselve s of the prote ctions of Te xas law wh e n the y a ssume d a contr a c t with a Te xas co rp or a tio n b e c a us e the ir c on ta c ts w ithTe xas, including meeting s and sending pay ments into Tex as, we re e ntirely incidental and immater ial to the purpose of

the assumed c ontrac t and wer e not initiated by the d ef en d an ts. Magnolia Gas , 994 S.W .2d at 692. Her e, I nnovative Therapies init iated the contac t with Texas by seekingout and re cruitingXu for his spec ialized skil l, arra ng ed for him to work on improving its Svedman prototy pe, and eng ag ed in s ub sta nti ve c omm

un ic a tio ns wi th Xu abo ut t he c ha ng e s to the pr oto ty

pe duri nga

se ve n- month period. The rec ord supports an implied findi n g t h at the communications betwe en Xu a nd Tumey and Vog el at Innovative The rapie s were active, c ollaborative phone calls and e mails as p ar t of an
on -g oin g “ te am” e ff

or t to c omp le te the su

bs tanti ve wo rk be ingdo ne on the pr oto ty

pe by bo th Xu in Texas a nd Tumey at I nnovative The rapie s. I n addition to working on the prototy pe himself, Tumey
was c losely

supervising Xu’s wor

k on the protot y

pe, with twice weekly phone ca lls during the se ven-04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

- 18- month period Xu worke d in Texas. Thus, the quality of the c ommunications betwee n Xu and Tume y and Vog el ar e distinguishable from the c ommunications in Credit Commercial and Ma gn oli a , which
wer e not mater ial to the substance of the contra ct, but rathe r only inci d en t al , p er t aining to such matters as whether

pay ments were rec eived. In addition, other cr itical fac tors are prese nt here in that I nn ov a tiv e Th e ra

pie s a c tiv e ly

and sp e c if ic a lly so ug ht out and re c ru ite d Xu, a Te xas r e sid e nt, fo r h is skill and knowledg e, to improve its prototy pe of the Svedman device and obtained a pproval ba sed
on his wo rk ; X u bu ilt

the ne w p ro tot

y pe in T e xas, and

Inn ov a tiv e Th e ra

pie s’ s u se of

Xu ’s wo rk

in the de vic e is the so ur c e of the c ur re nt l iti g a tio n b e tw e e n K CI and Inn ov a tiv e Th e ra

pie s. I n s u mm a r y , f o c u s i n g o u r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l ana ly sis on ly

on Inn ov a tiv e Th e ra

pie s’ s c on ta c ts w ith Te xas, we ho ld I

nn ov a tiv e Th e ra

pie s’ s c on ta c ts w ith Tex a s d o d e mon str a te that it purp os e fu lly availed itself of

the p ri v i l eg e of c onducting activities in Texas. Despite the fa ct that Innovative Th e ra pie s a tte mpt e d to avo id Te xas, the re is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e to d e mon str a te that Inn ov a tiv e Th e ra

pie s r e a c he d o ut t o T e xas b y ini tiatin g c on tact w ithXu and int e nti on a lly
rec ruiting Xu awa

y from a c ompetitor to work on its Svedman prototy pe. Ov er t he next seven months, I nnovative Thera pies maintained on-g oing and regular communications with Xu as cha ng es and improveme nts were made to the prototy pe by Xu and Tumey . Innovative The rapie s knew Xu lived and wor

ked in San Antoni o during the s even months it collaborated with him on the device. I nnovative The rapie s did not want just any eng ineer to work on its prototy

pe, or even just any

former KCIeng ineer

–it especia lly

wanted D r. Xu. Fur

thermore , Innovative The rapie s both reimbursed Xu for a ll his expenses and costs related to his work and ultimately compensated him for his work by g iving him an owne rship interest in the company . Innovative The rapie s acc epted a nd incorporated Xu ’s wo rk

int o th e fi na l S ved man d e vic e , s e e kin g and ob ta ini ngF DAa

pp ro va l ba se d, a t le a st i n04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

- 19- part, on Xu’s improvements. Fina lly , Innovative The rapie s intends to profit from the use of Xu’s work. Moreove r, t he record c ontains sufficient e vidence that Innovative The rapie s anticipated that litigation was f

orese ea b l e wh en it chose to use Xu to assist with the desig n of the Svedman prototy pe. As a dmitted by

I nnovative The rapie s in briefing befor e this c ourt, both Vog el and Tume y be lie ve d th a t Inn ov a tiv e Th e ra pie s f a c e d th e thr e a t of

a pate nt i nf

ri ng e me nt l aws uit by

KC Iif it la un c he d th e Sve dma

n d e vic e . O n the e ve of the la un c h, Tume y

c on ta c te d tw o o f h is f

or me r K CI colleagues in San Antonio to de termine if a business relationship wa s possible betwee n I nnovative Thera pies and KCI

in the field of neg ative pre ssure wound the rapy , and, alter natively , to assess the risk of litigation by

KCI . Such actions and r easona ble expectations by

Innovative The ra p ies are sufficie nt to establish purposeful ava ilment. Nogle & Black, 290 S.W .3d at 283. 2. Relation ship B etween Texas Contacts and Operative Facts of Litigation

“ [P]ur po se fu l ava ilm e nt a lon e wi ll n ot s up po rt an e xer c ise of

sp e c if ic jur isd ic tio n . . . un le ss the defendant’s liabili ty arises from or re lates to the for um contacts.” Moki Mac , 221 S.W .3d at 579. KC Ia rgue s Inn ov a tiv e Th e ra

pie s’ s c on t a c t s w i t h T e xas a re su bs tanti a lly

re late d to the op e ra

tiv e fa c ts of the liti gat i on beca

use the e ssence of KCI ’s suits is t hat Innovative The rapie s rec ruited and employ ed ex-employ ees of KCI i n Texas for the pur pose of wr ong fully

using the knowledg e they g a ine d at KCI to he lp de sig n a com pe tin g pr od

uc t. Inn ov a tiv e Th e ra

pie s c ounte rs that no ne of its alleg ed purpose ful contac ts are substa n tially connec ted to the oper ative fa cts of this liti g ation beca use KCI has re fused to identify

the trade secr ets and c onfidential information at issue or identify wher e those tra de sec rets and confidential information are alleg edly located in the S vedman de vice. Specifica lly , KCIsubmitt ed the a ffidavit of N adee m Bridi, its in-house counse l, who swore that he exami n ed the Svedman de vice a nd its accompa

nying liter ature and conc luded that the devic e04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

- 20- incorp orate d KCI ’s conf

idential information. When Br idi was deposed, how ever , Br idi followed the advice of KCI ’s counse l and re fused to identify the trade secr ets o r co nfidential information he claimed was incorpora

ted into the Svedman device . Wit hout the specific identification of the tr ade
secr ets and c onfidential information at issue and wher e th o s e ar e located in the Svedman devic e, I nnovative The rapie s contends th e r e is a b s o lu te ly n o nexus between its supposed contac ts with Tex as and the a sserted c laims. See M ichiana , 16 8 S. W.3 d at 79 4 ( ba re to rt all egati ons are le g a lly insufficient to support the e x erc ise of spec ific jurisdiction). We disag ree . Whether Innovative The rapie s actua lly used trade secrets and c onfidential information wrong fully obtained from ex-employ ees of KCI in completing the Svedman devic e is a mer its-based question that should not be resolved at the specia l appea ranc e stag e. Moki Mac , 221 S.W .3d at 582 (dec lining to adopt rule that “would require a court to delve into the merits to deter mine whether

a jur isd ic tio na l f

a c t is a c tua lly

a le g a l c a us e of the inj ur y ” ); Nog le & Black, 290 S.W .3d at 284 (whe ther e ng ineer

actua lly was ne g lige nt reg arding the wing s pars a nd whether

a proble m with wing spars a ctually

cause d the cr ash ar e mer its-based questions that should not be resolved i n context of specia l appea

ranc e); Pulmosan Safety Equip. Corp. v. Lamb , 2 73 S.W
. 3 d 8 2 9 , 8 3 9 ( T e x. App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] 2008, pet. denied) (whe ther L amb actually us e d th e Pul mos an h oo d is merits-base d question that should not be resolved in a specia l a ppear ance ). Instead, for

purposes of deter mining whe ther the de fenda nt’s liability

arises f rom or relates to the forum contac ts, we take KCI ’s pleading

and alleg ations as true a nd focus our

analy sis on the relationship amongthe defe ndant, the for

um, and the litigation. Moki Mac , 221 S.W .3d at 582. F or jur isd ic tio na l pu

rp os e s, Br idi’ s af

fi d av i t cre ates a

fac t issue reg ardingwhether Xu used tra de sec rets and c onfidential04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

- 21- information and that is suffic ient to support the trial court’ s determination that it has jurisdiction over I nn ov a tiv e Th e ra

pie s. 3. Tradition al Notions of Fair Play and Su bstant ial Jus tice Finally , havingdeter

mined that I nnovative The rapie s had minimum co n t ac t s with Texas sufficie nt to support specific jurisdiction, we must deter mine whether

subjecting it to the jurisdiction of Texas would offe nd traditional notions of fair play and subst antial j ustice. Republic Drilling , 278 S.W .3d at 341. In making this determination, we consider (1) the burden on the defendant, (2) the interests of the f

orum state in a djudicating the dispute, (3) the plaintiff’s intere st in obtaining re lief, (4 ) the int e rs tate jus tic e sy ste m’ s in te re st i n o bta ini ngthe mos t e ff ic ie nt r e so lut ion

of c on tr ov e rs ie s,
and (5 ) the sh are d inte re st of the se ve ra l sta te s in fur the ri ngfu nd ame nta l su

bs tanti ve so c ia l po lic ie s. Se e As ah i M

e tal In du s. Co. v . Sup e rio r Cour t of Cal ifo rn ia , 4 8 0 U. S
. 1 0 2 , 1 1 3 (1 9 8 7 ) ( ci t i n g WorldW ide Volkswagen Corp, v. W oodson , 44 4 U. S. 28 6, 29 2 (1 98 0) ). “ On ly in ra re c a se s, ho we ve r, wi ll the exercise of

jurisdiction not compor

t w ith f air play and substantial justice when the nonr esident defe ndant has p u rp o s efully established minium contacts with the for um state.” Spir Star AG v. Kimich , No
. 0 7 -0 3 4 0 , 2 0 1 0 W L 8 5 0 1 5 1 , at * 8 (T ex . M ar . 1 2 , 2 0 1 0 ) ( qu o t i n g Guardian Royal Ex c ha nge As su r. , Lt

d. v . E ng lis h Ch ina Cla

y s, P. L.C. , 815 S.W .2d 223, 231 (Tex. 1991), and c iting Burger King , 471 U.S. at 4 7 7 ). I n n o v ative The rapie s must present “a compelling case that the prese nce of

some consider ation would rend er j u ri sdiction unreasona ble” in orde r to defe at jurisdiction. Id. (q u o t i n g Burger King , 471 U.S. at 477). I t has failed to do so. I nnovative The rapie s conce des that Texas has a n i ntere st in the lit iga tion because KCI ’s principal plac e of business is in Texas, but argues it is unfair to subject it to the jurisdiction of Texas when it steadf

astly s t ru cture d its operations to avoid Texas, neither se ekingany benef it from04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

- 22- connec tions with Texas nor deriving a ny profit from Te x as. See M ichiana , 168 S.W .3d at 785 (“ a nonresident may

purposef ully avo id a par

ticular jurisdiction by

structuringits transactions so as neither to prof

it from the forum’ s laws nor be subje ct t o i t s j u ri sdiction”). Innovative The rapie s maintains it would be significan t l y burdene d by

litigatingin Texas due to travel, a nd argues Maryland is the better f

orum—KCIcan obta in relief in Ma ryland ag ainst all defe ndants since thre e of the name d ind ivi du a ls re sid e in Mary land and Xu ha s si g nif

ic ant c on ta c ts w iththe state be c a us e h e i s a s h ar e h o l d e r o f I n n o v a t i v e T h e r a p i e s ; m an y w i tn e s s e s ar e l o c a t e d th e r e ; an d s h o uld KC I p r e v a il an d

o b ta in a mo n e y ju d g me n t a g a in s t I

n n o v a ti v e T h e r a

p ie s , it s p r o p e rty is lo c a te d th e r e . We disag ree that litigation of this case i n Texas would pose a substantial burde n on Innovative Th e ra pie s. As a c kn ow le dg e d b y

I nn ov a tiv e Th e ra

pie s, Te xas h a s a

n inte re st i n th e lit ig a tio n b e c a us e KCI ’s principa l place of

business is in Tex as. Innovative The rapie s’s co-de fenda n t s , wh o are the office rs and sha

reholde rs of the corpor ation, have alrea dy submitt ed to the jurisdiction of the Te x as court. L itigatingthe ca ses in both Texas and Maryland would there fore duplicate c osts and be inconvenient f

o r the par

ties as well as the witnesses; furthe r, it would be a w aste of judicia l
resour ces. Consideringall fac tors, the trial court’s exercise of persona l jurisdiction over Innovative Th e ra pie s d oe s n ot o ff

e nd jus tic e or fa ir ne ss. C ONCL US I ON Be cause I nnovative The rapie s eng ag ed in m inimum contac ts with Texas sufficie nt to subject it to specific jurisdiction in a Texas court, a nd beca use the e x erc ise of such jurisdiction would not offe nd traditional notions of fair pla y and s u b s t anti al justice, we aff irm the trial cour

t’s order s denying the specia l appea

ranc es by I nnovative Therapies. Our resolution of t his appea l based on the04
- 09
- 00 28 5- CV & 04
- 09
- 00 28 6- CV

- 23- exis tence of spec ific jurisdiction fore closes the ne ed t o addre ss the arguments relate d to ge nera l jurisdiction.
Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice