In such instances, Rule 4(k)(2) permits nationwide aggregation of contacts for the exercise of personal jurisdiction if the claim arises under federal law and there are sufficient minimum contacts with the United States as a whole. Read v. Moe, 899 F.Supp.2d 1024, 1033 (W.D. Wash. 2012); Wanacheck Mink Ranch v. Alaska Brokerage Int'l, Inc., No. C06-089RSM, 2009 WL 1247039, at *4 (W.D. Wash. May 4, 2009).

See Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2008). "[S]pecific jurisdiction is tethered to a relationship between the forum and the claim," whereas general jurisdiction is not. Read v. Moe, 899 F. Supp. 2d 1024, 1029 (W.D. Wash. 2012) (quoting Holland Am. Line, Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 460 (9th Cir. 2007)). "For general jurisdiction to exist over a nonresident defendant [], the defendant must engage in 'continuous and systematic general business contacts,' [] that 'approximate physical presence' in the forum state."

He was looking for something more and could not find it in the record in [ ]McIntyre. And his opinion is the governing opinion under Marks —the narrowest grounds for concurrence were the absence of ‘something more’ than merely placing a product in the stream of commerce.”); Sebring v. Air Equip. & Eng'g, Inc., 988 N.E.2d 272, 280 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (noting both that Justice Breyer disagreed with the rule employed by the New Jersey Supreme court and that the reason that Justice Breyer found that Nicastro had not met his burden of proof was because he felt that something more than simply placing a product into the stream of commerce was required for specific jurisdiction to exist); Smith v. Teledyne Cont'l Motors, Inc., 840 F.Supp.2d 927, 929 (D.S.C.2012) (Bertelsman, S.J.) (interpreting McIntyre as adopting Justice O'Connor's approach in Asahi ); Read v. Moe, 899 F.Supp.2d 1024, 1032 (W.D.Wash.2012) (Jones, J.) (“[Breyer's] opinion also eschewed the approach of the New Jersey Supreme Court, an approach that in many respects resembled Justice Brennan's opinion in Asahi. ”); Windsor v. Spinner Indus. Co., Ltd., 825 F.Supp.2d 632, 638 (D.Md.2011) (Bredar, J.) (“McIntyre clearly rejects foreseeability as the standard for personal jurisdiction.