D is a corporation that manufactures valves to be used in various heating devices. D is incorporated in Germany, and has its only offices there. D sells many valves to Boiler Co., a Spanish manufacturer of boilers. A boiler made by Boiler Co. and with a valve made by D is installed in a hotel in Amsterdam, Holland. While P, a Texas resident, is visiting that hotel, the boiler explodes, causing P to be burned in the ensuing fire. D has a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary, D-Sub, that is incorporated in Delaware, and that has its principal place of business in Virginia. From the Virginia office, D-Sub makes sales of D's products throughout the U.S.; these sales collectively represent 12% of D's worldwide sales. About 8% of D-Sub's sales (and thus less than 1% of D's worldwide sales) are made to customers located in Texas. In reliance on D-Sub's sales in Texas, P brings a product liability suit against D and D-Sub in Texas state court, claiming that a defect in the valve that was sold by D to Boiler Co. and incorporated by the latter into the boiler installed in Amsterdam was the cause of P's injuries. D and D-Sub both move to dismiss the suit on grounds that personal jurisdiction may not constitutionally be exercised against either by the Texas court.

How should the Texas court rule on the motions? Does it matter that the accident occurred outside the United States?

Question responses must clearly identify each IRAC component as well.