In P.V.F., Inc. v. Pro Metals, Inc., 60 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. App.--Houston 14th Dist. 2001, pet. denied), the Texas plaintiff, Pro Metals, Inc., sued over two unpaid invoices for pipes and pipe fittings, including components manufactured in Texas. P.V.F., 60 S.W.3d at 323. P.V.F. contended that the two contracts were isolated contacts with Texas and therefore could not provide a basis for specific jurisdiction. P.V.F., 60 S.W.3d at 325. The Fourteenth Court, however, noted that "where, as here, a nonresident defendant has conducted numerous transactions in another state, limiting the determination of whether the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in that state to only the transaction(s) the defendant is alleged to have breached there would render the determination meaningless." Id. at 326. P.V.F. had issued thirty separate purchase orders over the course of a couple of years, although the record did not establish which party had initiated contact. Id. at 327. The goods were for resale to others and were shipped F.O.B. Houston. Id. at 323, 327. In connection with the sale, P.V.F. had submitted a credit application for the purchase of the goods. Id. at 327. The court concluded that, under those facts, P.V.F. had purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Texas and was subject to specific jurisdiction. Id. at 326-27 (noting entire sequence of transactions that P.V.F. entered into with Pro Metals must be considered in determining whether P.VF. purposefully directed activities to Texas for purposes of specific jurisdiction).