The Texas long-arm statute authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant as far as the due process requirements of the federal constitution will permit. Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C. 815 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991). Accordingly, Texas courts have personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if he has purposefully established minimum contacts with Texas and the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474-76, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528, 105 S. Ct. 2174 (1985 ). A minimum contacts analysis may give rise to either general or specific jurisdiction. CSR, Ltd., v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 595 (Tex. 1996). General jurisdiction attaches when the nonresident defendant conducts substantial activities and has continuous and systematic contacts with the state, thereby allowing the exercise of personal jurisdiction even when the claims against the defendant do not arise from its activities in the state. See id. On the other hand, specific jurisdiction is established when the defendant's particular actions in the forum state give rise to the claims being asserted against it. Id.