Background
Boston Scientific sought a preliminary injunction to stop Stryker from launching its OptaBlate BVN product, alleging it induced infringement of claims sixteen and twenty-one of United States Patent Number twelve million three hundred three thousand one hundred sixty-six. The patent covers a method for ablating the basivertebral nerve using a radiofrequency probe. The district court denied the injunction, finding that Boston Scientific failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because the evidence did not sufficiently show that Stryker instructed physicians to use the device in a manner that met the patent’s claim limitations.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. It reiterated that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of likelihood of success on the merits, which in patent cases means there must be no substantial question as to infringement. The court noted that the district court had not yet conducted formal claim construction and that the parties disputed the meaning of the term reaches. Because substantial questions remained regarding whether Stryker induced infringement under the proper claim construction, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision without deciding the ultimate construction of the claims.
Because we agree with the district court that there are substantial questions as to whether Stryker induced infringement of the asserted claims, we affirm.
Boston Scientific Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 2026-1171 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision allows Stryker to proceed with the launch of its OptaBlate BVN product while the underlying patent infringement claims remain unresolved, pending further proceedings or a final judgment on the merits.