Case Name: VASCULAR SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-15
Citations: 562 F. App'x 967
Docket Number: No. 2014-1185
Parties: VASCULAR SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOORE, PLAGER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 562
Pages: 967–967

Head Matter:
VASCULAR SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 2014-1185.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
April 15, 2014.
J. Thomas Vitt, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, of Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief was Heather D. Redmond.
Matthew M. Wolf, Arnold & Porter LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Edward Han, John E. Nilsson, and Seth I. Heller.
Before MOORE, PLAGER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

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.