792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir.1986). However, “federal law is controlling on the issue of due process under the United States Constitution.” Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1286 n. 3 (9th Cir.1977); see also Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2002). Therefore, the Court will apply law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in deciding whether jurisdiction is appropriate under the Due Process Clause. See In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 829 F.2d 1171, 1174 (D.C.Cir.1987) (concluding that “the transferee court [should] be free to decide a federal claim in the manner it views as correct without deferring to the interpretation of the transferor circuit”); Menowitz v. Brown, 991 F.2d 36, 40 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). To satisfy federal due process standards, a
holding that federal courts are bound by state interpretations of state law holding that federal law governs res judicata effect of an earlier federal judgment based on federal law holding that a transferee federal court should apply its interpretations of federal law not the constructions of federal law of the transferor circuit holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law holding that federal circuit would henceforth apply its own law rather than regional circuit law to questions involving the relationship between patent law and other federal and state law rights