N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
MACOM TECHNOLOGY SOL UTIONS HOLDINGS, INC., NITRONEX, LLC, Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG, Defendant

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIE S AMERICAS CORPORATION, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________
2017

- 1882

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District o f California in No. 2:16

- cv

- 02859

- CAS

PLA, Judge Christina A. Snyder.

______________________
Decided: February 7, 2018

______________________
A MANDA T ESSAR , Perkins Coie, LLP, Denver, CO, argued for plaintiffs

- appellants. Also represented by E LIZABETH M. B ANZHOFF ; D AN L. B AGATELL , Hanover, NH; D ANIEL T YLER K EESE , Portland, OR

.MACOM TECHNOLOGY SOL UTIONS v. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIE S AMERICAS 2

D AVID G. W ILLE , Baker Botts, LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by J EFFERY D. B AXTER , B RIAN D OUGLAS J OHNSTON

.

______________________
Before P ROST , Chief Judge, W ALLACH and S TOLL , Circuit Judges.

P ROST , Chief Judge

. Plaintiffs MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. and Nitronex, LLC (collectively, “MACOM”) sought and obtained a preliminary injunction against defendant Infineon Techno logies Americas Corp. (“Infineon”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The district court’s December 7, 2016 preliminary injun ction 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 a ppealed the I njunction on several grounds in Case No. 2017

- 1448 (the “First Appeal”), a companion to this a ppeal

. Days before filing its Notice of Appeal in the First A ppeal, Infineon moved the district court to modify the I njunction

. On March 6, 2017, while the First Appeal was pending, the district court ruled for Infineon and modified the first sentence of the third paragraph of the Injunction. J.A. 2863, 2865

– 66 (the “Modified Inj unction”). MACOM
ap peals 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 inte rpretation of the agreement.
W e 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

c ourt’s modification reflected an erroneous interpretationMACOM TECHNOLOGY SOL UTIONS v. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIE S AMERICAS 3

of the agreement are moot. 1 We therefore dismiss this appeal.
DISMISSED
C OSTS The parties shall bear their own costs.

1 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 MACOM’s counsel regarding mootness implications of vacating the third paragraph of the Injunction in the First Appeal ).