Does a full litigation of the merits of a personal jurisdictional challenge sufficiently preserve the issue for full review on appeal?

question presented therefore, is: 1. Does a full litigation of the merits of a personal jurisdictional challenge sufficiently preserve the issue for full review on appeal? This Court has held that a court may exercise specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant only if there is “an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, an activity or occurrence that takes place in the forum state,” and that, “[w]hen there is no such connection, specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1781 (2017) (quotation marks and brackets omitted). ii In this case, the Court handed down the BristolMyers Squibb Co., opinion during litigation, after the District Court had ruled on Petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but before trial, verdict, and appeal. The parties below fully briefed the effect of the Court’s holding in BristolMyers Squibb to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court of Appeals did not consider the Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. opinion whatsoever in its analysis and opinion. The question presented is: 2. Did the Ninth Circuit err by not considering this Court’s recent ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb?