       NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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.
