With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Edberg v. Neogen Corp., 17 F.Supp.2d 104, 112 (D.Conn.1998) (noting that “the courts have repeatedly held that jurisdiction may not be manufactured by the conduct of others”); Elbex Video Kabushiki Kaisha v. Taiwan Regular Elec. Co., No. 93 Civ. 6160(KMW), 1995 WL 224774, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 1995) (finding no personal jurisdiction where plaintiff arranged for former employee to make purchase from defendant for purpose of creating jurisdiction); see also Claras Transphase Scientific, Inc. v. Q- 4 F.Supp.2d 1284, 1287 (D.N.M.1998) (“Courts have held repeatedly that a defendant’s responses to the unilateral acts of a plaintiff are not contacts with the forum state sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.”); DeSantis v. Hafner Creations, Inc., 949 F.Supp. 419, 424 (E.D.Va.1996) (<HOLDING>); Network Profis., Inc. v. Network Int’l Ltd.,

A: holding that personal jurisdiction over defendant car manufacturer was inappropriate when defendants only contacts with the forum resulted from plaintiffs unilateral activity of driving defendants product into another state
B: holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant where defendant assignee received patents from assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction in part because the unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state
C: holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant because plaintiff failed to show that defendant was assignee of assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction
D: holding that personal jurisdiction was lacking when the only contact by defendant with forum state was initiated by plaintiffs counsels paralegal for the sole purpose of establishing personal jurisdiction
D.