So, too, have courts applying the law of other jurisdictions. (Id. at 20 (citing Chem-Trol, Inc. v. Christensen, 2009 WL 331625 (D. Kan. Feb. 10, 2009); Timber Lake Foods, Inc. v. Estess, 72 So.3d 521 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)).

The Court finds this limit is reasonable under these facts. Cf. Chem-Trol, Inc. v. Christensen, 2009 WL 331625, at *10 (D. Kan. 2009) (noting that two-year non-compete agreements are generally reasonable in Kansas); see also Am. Fidelity Assurance Corp., 81 F.Supp.2d at 1120 (“The employer should be given a reasonable period of time to overcome the employee's personal hold over the customers.”).

See id. Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 483-84; see also Chem-Trol, Inc. v. Christensen, 2009 WL 1044613 at *5. In weighing the reasonableness of exercising jurisdiction, courts traditionally consider the following five factors: (1) the burden on the defendant, (2) the forum state's interest in resolving the dispute, (3) the plaintiff's interest in receiving convenient and effective relief, (4) the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and (5) the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental social policies.

These are strong contacts and significant examples of TIC's purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities in Kansas. See Chem–Trol, Inc. v. Christensen, No. 09–2024, EFM, 2009 WL 1044613, at *2 (D.Kan.2009) (unpublished opinion) (finding Iowa corporation started by Kansas corporation's former employee, who was subject to noncompete agreement, was subject to jurisdiction under tortious act provision of Kansas long-arm statute; tortious interference with customer contracts); Guang Dong Light Headgear Factory Co., Ltd. v. ACI International, Inc., No. 03–4165–JAR, 2007 WL 1341699, at *5 (D.Kan.2007) (unpublished opinion) (former employee of a Kansas business incorporated in Texas with the purpose of competing with Kansas business; held that even though Texas corporation itself did not act in the state of Kansas, its agent's and coconspirator's activities were attributable to corporation, and corporation reasonably should have foreseen that it would be required to defend itself in a Kansas court). Weighing the burden on TIC against the backdrop Aeroflex may eventually prove regarding TIC's relationship with Filardo, its conspiracy to steal proprietary information, and the actions in Kansas