Case ID: f-appx_710/html/0892-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Prost, Chief Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MACOM TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS HOLDINGS, INC., Nitronex, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG, Defendant Infineon Technologies Americas Corporation, Defendant-Appellee
    2017-1882
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Decided February 7, 2018
    Amanda Tessar, Perkins Coie, LLP, Denver, CO, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by Elizabeth M. Banzhoff; Dan L. Bagatell, Hanover, NH; Daniel Tyler Keese, Portland, OR.
    David G. Wille, Baker Botts, LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Jeffery D. Baxter, Brian Douglas Johnston.
    Before Prost, Chief Judge, Wallach And Stoll, Circuit Judges.
   Prost, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. and Nitronex, LLC (collectively, “MACOM”) sought and obtained a preliminary injunction against defendant Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. (“Infineon”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The district court’s December 7, 2016 preliminary injunction declared that Infineon’s termination of an agreement was ineffective and ordered Infineon to comply with that agreement. J.A. 50-52 (the “Injunction”). Infineon appealed the Injunction on several grounds in Case No. 2017-1448 (the “First Appeal”), a companion to this appeal.

Days before filing its Notice of Appeal in the First Appeal, Infineon moved the district court to modify the Injunction. On March 6, 2017, while the First Appeal was pending, the district court ruled for Infi-neon and modified the first sentence of the third paragraph of the Injunction. J.A. 2868, 2865-66 (the “Modified Injunction”). MACOM appeals the Modified Injunction and argues 'that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify the Injunction while it was on appeal in the First Appeal; and (2) the district court’s modification reflected an erroneous interpretation of the agreement.

We vacated the first sentence of the Injunction’s third paragraph in the First Appeal. Thus, the issues of whether the district court had jurisdiction to modify the Injunction while it was on appeal and whether the district court’s modification reflected an erroneous interpretation of •the agreement are moot. We therefore dismiss this appeal.

DISMISSED

Costs

The parties shall bear their own costs. 
      
      . See Infineon’s Br. 42 (arguing that vacating the third paragraph of the Injunction in the First Appeal would moot this appeal); Oral Argument at 8:19-40, MACOM Tech. Solutions Holdings, Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG (No. 2017-1882), http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/ oral-argument-recordings (colloquy with MA-COM’s counsel regarding mootness implications of vacating the third paragraph of the Injunction in the First Appeal).