A court may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if the requirements of both the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause and the Texas long-arm statute are satisfied. CSR, Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 594 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding). Because the Texas long-arm statute reaches "as far as the federal constitutional requirements of due process will allow," the statute is satisfied if the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with federal due process. Id. Federal due process requirements are two-fold. First, the nonresident defendant must have purposefully established such minimum contacts with the forum that it could reasonably anticipate being sued there. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475; 105 S. Ct. 2174, 2183, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985). If the nonresident defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privileges and benefits of conducting business in a state, it has sufficient contacts to confer personal jurisdiction. Id. Random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts do not suffice. Id. Neither do unilateral actions by third parties claiming some relationship with the nonresident defendant. Id. It is the quality and nature of the contacts, rather than their number, that is important. Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223, 230 n.11 (Tex. 1991). Minimum contacts analysis is further divided into general and specific personal jurisdiction. CSR, Ltd., 925 S.W.2d at 595. To support a finding of general jurisdiction, the defendant's forum activities must have been "substantial," which requires stronger evidence of contacts than for specific personal jurisdiction. Id. Second, if the nonresident defendant has purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum, the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice. Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 477; 105 S. Ct. at 2184; Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 231.