Vascular Solutions, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp.

Federal Circuit

Vascular Solutions, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp.

562 F. App'x 967

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit·Decided April 15, 2014·No. No. 2014-1185·Published

Opinion

PLAGER, Circuit Judge.

A preliminary injunction is a “drastic and extraordinary remedy that is not to be routinely granted.” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1324 (Fed.Cir.2004) (citing Intel Corp. v. VLSI Sys. Tech., Inc., 995 F.2d 1566, 1568 (Fed.Cir.1993)). As evidenced by the extended argument before this court, there are too many unresolved issues at this stage of the case and the record is too incomplete on issues of claim construction, infringement, and ultimate validity to warrant the grant of a preliminary injunction. For these reasons, we vacate the preliminary injunction.

VACATED

Each party shall bear its costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PLAGER, Circuit Judge.

A preliminary injunction is a “drastic and extraordinary remedy that is not to be routinely granted.” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1324 (Fed.Cir.2004) (citing Intel Corp. v. VLSI Sys. Tech., Inc., 995 F.2d 1566, 1568 (Fed.Cir.1993)). As evidenced by the extended argument before this court, there are too many unresolved issues at this stage of the case and the record is too incomplete on issues of claim construction, infringement, and ultimate validity to warrant the grant of a preliminary injunction. For these reasons, we vacate the preliminary injunction.

VACATED

Each party shall bear its costs.

Vascular Solutions, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 562 F. App'x 967 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Pincite

562 F. App'x 967 (Vascular Solutions, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related