In Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operation, S.A. v. Brown, what must a foreign entity do to be subject to suits unrelated to its activities in a state?

In the case of Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard for establishing personal jurisdiction over a foreign entity. For a court to have general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation, that entity must engage in continuous and systematic activities within the jurisdiction. This means that the corporation's ties to the state should be so pervasive that it is considered to have a presence there, making it amenable to lawsuits even for matters unrelated to its in-state activities.

Continuous and systematic contacts demonstrate a level of integration into the state's economy and legal framework that justifies the exercise of jurisdiction. Factors that may contribute include the volume of business conducted within the state, the existence of offices, and other forms of substantial operation.

In contrast, merely increasing product sales, establishing a physical office, or being incorporated in the state does not inherently satisfy the requirement for general jurisdiction. These actions could be part of a broader context but do not alone guarantee that a foreign entity is subject to the court's jurisdiction for unrelated claims.