With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by plaintiffs does not establish a prima facie showing of purposeful availment jurisdiction over the Rule 12(b)(2) defendants. First, plaintiffs offer evidence that Mars Canada and Nestlé Canada manufactured products in Canada and then transferred them to their American counterparts, Mars Snackfood and Nestlé U.S.A. (Doc. 472, Ex. A ¶¶ 10-11; Doc. 479, Ex. B ¶¶ 11-12.) These transactions, however, do not raise an inference that Mars Canada or Nestlé Canada influenced the post-transfer pricing of the products. Their status as remote suppliers of chocolate confectionary products does not buttress the claims of alleged antitrust harm that occurred after the products left their dominion and control. See, e.g., Ware v. Ball Plastic Container Corp., 432 F.Supp.2d 434, 438 n. 3 (D.Del.2006) (<HOLDING>); Patent Incentives, Inc. v. Seiko Epson Corp.,

A: holding the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal where the circuit court had the power to remand the agency decision for further proceedings
B: holding that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because it was filed without proper authority
C: holding that the court lacked specific jurisdietion to hear a discrimination claim against the defendant whose sole contact with the forum was the shipment of products into the state
D: holding in pertinent part that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal
C.