The missing piece in the analysis is that federal courts also have to have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. They borrow the requirements from the state where the district court is located.
Fed Cts. interpret state law (including the long arm statutes)unless it is a federal issue (if it were for some reason a federal issue I'm not sure if there would be any boundaries for minimum contacts besides the constitution?).
Main point is Fed courts need to have PERSONAL jurisdiction as well, in order to satisfy due process, and then they ALSO need SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction (e.g. "arising under", "diversity" or some form of joinder / supplemental jurisdiction)-- don't be fooled.
Also, another thing: there are also the other traditional ways of having personal jurisdiction you don't want to overlook
Here's my "ways to establish PJ" rule:
1. CONSENT (express or implied)
2. PRESENCE (actual, domicle, or doing ongoing/systematic business)
3. LONG ARM STATUTES of states (*also - must be constitutional)