Opinions — Wednesday, June 17, 2026

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Boston Scientific's motion for a preliminary injunction against Stryker for induced infringement of claims 16 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,303,166, which relates to methods of ablating the basivertebral nerve to treat chronic low back pain. The dispute centered on whether Stryker's instructions for using its OptaBlate BVN device would cause physicians to practice a claim limitation requiring that "an opening at a distal tip of the introducer reaches a cancellous portion of the vertebral body." The district court construed "reaches" to mean "touches or extends to" the cancellous bone and found that Boston Scientific failed to show Stryker instructed physicians to place the access cannula to satisfy this limitation.

The court held that the movant failed to carry its burden of demonstrating likelihood of success on the merits where the parties presented virtually no substantive claim construction arguments or evidence before the district court. Reviewing the district court's tentative construction for abuse of discretion, the panel found the term "reaches" facially ambiguous—dictionaries supported both parties' readings—and the intrinsic evidence insufficiently developed to conclude that Boston Scientific's construction (approaching or creating access to, rather than physically touching) was likely correct. The court noted that the specification's use of "reaches" in other contexts, numbered embodiments distinguishing trocar placement, and unexplored prosecution history all left substantial questions unresolved, rendering denial of the preliminary injunction proper at this early stage before formal claim construction.