NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ VASCULAR SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. ______________________ 2014-1185 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in No. 0:13-cv-01172-JRT-SER, Judge John R. Tunheim. ______________________ Decided: April 15, 2014 ______________________ J. THOMAS VITT, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, of Minneap- olis, Minnesota, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief was HEATHER D. REDMOND.

MATTHEW M. WOLF, Arnold & Porter LLP, of Wash- ington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were EDWARD HAN, JOHN E. NILSSON, and SETH I. HELLER. ______________________ 2 VASCULAR SOLUTIONS, INC. v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION

Before MOORE, PLAGER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PLAGER, Circuit Judge.

A preliminary injunction is a “drastic and extraordi- nary 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. ULSI 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.