Boston Scientific Corp. v. Stryker Corporation

Boston Scientific Corp. v. Stryker Corporation The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that Stryker raised substantial questions of noninfringement and that Boston Scientific therefore failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The district court did not abuse its discretion in its tentative construction and application of the claim term “reaches,” or in rejecting Boston Scientific’s minimally developed doctrine-of-equivalents theory at the preliminary-injunction stage. The decision underscores that a sparse claim-construction record and ambiguous accused-product instructions can defeat preliminary injunctive relief even before formal Markman proceedings. Affirmed; costs awarded to Stryker. The asserted claims require an introducer tip opening that “reaches” a cancellous portion of the vertebral body; the district court tentatively construed that language to require touching or extending to the cancellous bone. Boston Scientific had not meaningfully developed claim-construction arguments below, and the Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s preliminary treatment of the ambiguous term. Stryker’s physician-training materials, instructions, and internal documents were at least ambiguous as to whether the access cannula—as opposed to a stylet or other tool—was placed in contact with cancellous bone. Boston Scientific’s doctrine-of-equivalents argument was raised only in a footnote below and, in any event, faced conflicting evidence on whether the access-cannula position was a substantial difference. The court also affirmed as to contributory infringement because Boston Scientific raised no additional arguments supporting that theory. claim construction infringement injunction / stay waiver / forfeiture non-precedential claim construction infringement injunction / stay waiver / forfeiture non-precedential claim construction infringement injunction / stay non-precedential