Atom Nanoelectronics. Inc. and Kris Smolinski v. Applied Nanofluorescence, LLC, 01-15-00952-CV

Applied NanoFluorescence (Houston) manufactured the NS3 NanoSpectralyzer; Atom Nanoelectronics (Delaware/California) and CEO Kris Smolinski negotiated to buy one.
Negotiations occurred over ~4 months by telephone and email; Atom sent multiple samples to Applied Nano in Texas for testing.
Applied Nano quoted terms requiring payment to a Texas bank and shipment “FOB Houston.” Atom initially proposed payment after installation; Applied Nano rejected that change.
Smolinski represented Atom was creditworthy, sent a revised purchase order promising payment after installation, and induced Applied Nano to proceed.
Applied Nano manufactured and shipped the instrument from Texas; Applied Nano’s representative flew to California to install it and later provided a custom module to fix errors. Atom did not pay the final balance.
Applied Nano sued in Harris County for breach of contract, unjust enrichment (against Atom), and fraud in the inducement (against Atom and Smolinski); the trial court denied Atom’s and Smolinski’s special appearances contesting personal jurisdiction, and they appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Texas has specific personal jurisdiction over Atom for breach of contract and unjust enrichment	Atom purposefully availed itself: negotiated with a Texas seller, sent samples to Texas, paid initial funds to a Texas bank, contract performance and manufacture occurred in Texas, instrument shipped FOB Houston	Atom had no purposeful Texas contacts: negotiations by phone/email, delivery out-of-state, invoice marked out-of-state sale; defendants are California residents	Court held sufficient contacts: repeated negotiations initiated by Atom, samples sent to Texas, payments to Texas bank, FOB Houston shipment, and manufacture in Texas supported specific jurisdiction; special appearance denied
Whether Texas has specific personal jurisdiction over Atom and Smolinski for fraud in the inducement	Smolinski made false, material representations in Texas-directing communications that induced Applied Nano to manufacture and ship the instrument from Texas	Smolinski and Atom lack purposeful contacts with Texas; sworn special-appearance assertions deny Texas contacts	Court held Smolinski’s repeated communications, inducements to accept revised payment terms, and role in negotiating a contract performed largely in Texas were sufficient to support specific jurisdiction; special appearance denied

Kelly v. General Interior Construction, Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2010) (standard of review and long‑arm/due process framework)
Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (minimum contacts and fair play analysis)
Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (single contact contract cannot alone support jurisdiction)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts test)
Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (U.S. 2014) (relevance of defendant’s forum‑directed actions and physical entry of goods)
Laidlaw Waste Sys. (Dall.), Inc. v. City of Wilmer, 904 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1995) (sworn pleadings generally not competent evidence)
American Type Culture Collection, Inc. v. Coleman, 83 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. 2002) (FOB terms and place of title transfer relevant to jurisdictional contacts)
J.D. Fields & Co. v. W.H. Streit, Inc., 21 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (payments to Texas bank as a jurisdictional factor)
Touradji v. Beach Capital P’ship, L.P., 316 S.W.3d 15 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (specific jurisdiction analysis and claim‑specific contacts)