With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". its licensees for sales made in Minnesota is equally irrelevant. “[FJinancial benefits accruing to the defendant from a collateral relation to the forum State will not support jurisdiction if they do not stem from a consti tutionally cognizable contact with that State.” World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 299, 100 S.Ct. 559. Because the contacts of HHI’s licensees with Minnesota are not “constitutionally cognizable” for purposes of jurisdiction over HHI, any financial benefits accruing to HHI from its licensees’ relations with Minnesota are irrelevant. Red Wing’s attempt to describe HHI’s licensees as a “distribution channel” in order to invoke a “stream of commerce” theory also falls short. Cf. Viam Corp. v. Iowa Export-Import Trading Co., 84 F.3d 424, 38 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). HHI’s product is a covenant not to sue, not a

A: recognizing and applying the stream of commerce theory
B: recognizing the common enterprise theory of marriage
C: holding summary judgment appropriate when the facts in evidence supported another plausible theory not the plaintiffs theory of the case
D: recognizing theory of constructive possession
A.