NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MACOM TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS HOLDINGS, 

INC., NITRONEX, LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG,

Defendant

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AMERICAS 

CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-1882

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 2:16-cv-02859-CASPLA, Judge Christina A. Snyder.

______________________ 

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. 
 MACOM TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS v. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES 

AMERICAS

2

 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 Infineon and modified 

the first sentence of the third paragraph of the Injunction. 

J.A. 2863, 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 
MACOM TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS v. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES 

AMERICAS

3

of the agreement are moot.1 We therefore dismiss this 

appeal.

DISMISSED

COSTS

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/oralargument-recordings (colloquy with MACOM’s counsel 

regarding mootness implications of vacating the third 

paragraph of the Injunction in the First Appeal).