Twister B v. v. Newton Research Partners, LP, 364 S.W.3d 428

Twister B.V. appeals a trial court order denying its special appearance in Newton Research Partners, LP's suit alleging theft of trade secrets and related claims.
Newton alleges Newton's confidential trade secrets were developed by Bloom and that Twister used them in its gas-separation products marketed in Texas.
Twister, a Netherlands company, is connected to Shell through technology development and allegedly marketed products containing Newton's trade secrets in Texas.
Newton's pleadings assert Twister marketed and sold products in Texas, with Texas contacts including marketing, sales efforts, and conferences, plus confidentiality agreements with Texas entities.
The trial court denied Twister's amended special appearance; no fact findings were issued; appellate review proceeds on implied findings from the record.
The court analyzes specific jurisdiction, determining Twister had purposeful Texas contacts and that the claims arise from those contacts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court has specific jurisdiction over Twister	Newton; Twister's Texas acts relate to misappropriation and civil theft.	Twister; Texas contacts are unrelated to Newton's claims and do not arise from the asserted misappropriation.	Yes; specific jurisdiction exists for both misappropriation and civil theft claims.
Whether Twister’s contacts in Texas satisfy due process for specific jurisdiction	Newton; Texas activities connect to operative facts of the litigation.	Twister; contacts are marketing-focused and not causally tied to liability.	Held in the affirmative; minimum contacts and relatedness satisfy due process.
Whether Twister’s contacts render jurisdiction unreasonable under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice	Newton; Texas interest and burden on Twister are outweighed by plaintiff's relief interests.	Twister; the burden is significant due to foreign location and evidence translation.	No; exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play.

Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (establishes implied findings when no express findings are made on jurisdiction)
BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (implied findings; limits on long-arm jurisdiction)
Kelly v. Gen. Interior Constr., Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2010) (shifts burden of proof in a special-appearance challenge)
Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2010) (test for specific jurisdiction including purposefulness and relatedness)
Delta Brands, Inc. v. Rautaruukki Steel, 118 S.W.3d 506 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2003) (conflates long-arm with due process in general jurisdiction)
Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., Solano Cnty., 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (fair-play considerations in jurisdiction)
Guardian Royal Exch. Assur., Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (jurisdictional due-process standards; burden considerations)
Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (minimum contacts and relatedness framework for specific jurisdiction)
Computer Assocs. Int'l v. Altai, Inc., 918 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. 1996) (accrual concepts not controlling for jurisdiction)