IP Law Daily, PATENT—W.D.N.C.: Cold-chain packaging manufacturer secures preliminary injunction against rival’s redesigned shipping container, (May 12, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

The redesigned insulated container likely infringed a newly issued patent and threatened the patent holder with loss of market share, price erosion, and possible business collapse.

A federal court in North Carolina has granted a preliminary injunction barring a cold-chain packaging manufacturer from making, marketing, selling, or using a redesigned insulated shipping container after finding that the product likely infringed a newly issued patent covering methods of forming insulated container pads. The court held that the patent holder demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, defeated the accused infringer’s obviousness challenge, and established irreparable harm through customer losses, workforce reductions, and price erosion. The court also found that the balance of hardships and the public interest favored injunctive relief (Yukon Packaging LLC v. Jones Sustainable Packaging, LLC, No. 5:25-cv-00007-MEO-DCK (W.D.N.C. May 8, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Yukon Packaging LLC, and the defendant, Jones Sustainable Packaging LLC, compete in the cold-chain packaging industry, manufacturing insulated shipping containers designed to maintain stable temperatures during shipment. The companies directly competed in what the court described as a two-player market for three-piece insulated shipping containers. Yukon previously obtained a preliminary injunction in 2025 against an earlier Jones product, after which Jones introduced a redesigned “Accused Hinge-Break Product.”

The dispute centered on U.S. Patent No. 12,595,110 (the ’110 patent), issued on April 7, 2026, covering methods of forming container insulation from post-industrial pre-consumer cotton or synthetic waste fiber. The patent describes methods for processing insulation into pads configured for placement inside rigid shipping containers. Claim 1 covers cutting insulated pads configured for placement against different container surfaces, while Claims 2 and 3 add limitations involving poly-wrap encasing and paper applications. According to the USPTO examiner, prior art failed to teach or disclose cutting insulated pads configured for positioning inside rigid containers during the cutting process.

Yukon originally filed suit in January 2025, alleging that Jones infringed its patents through insulated cold-chain packaging products. After the court enjoined Jones’s earlier product in April 2025, Jones began selling the redesigned Accused Hinge-Break Product, which used multiple insulated pads inside separate poly-wrap bags arranged against different interior surfaces of a corrugated box. Jones asserted that it specifically designed the product to avoid infringement. Yukon then filed the instant motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on the same day the ’110 Patent issued, alleging direct and indirect infringement. Jones opposed the motion, arguing noninfringement, invalidity based on obviousness, and lack of irreparable harm.

Claim language. Addressing the infringement claim, the court found that Yukon would likely succeed on the merits. The primary dispute concerned Claim 1’s requirement that “during the cutting step,” the insulated pads are “configured to be positioned” inside a rigid container. Jones argued that the claim required the pads actually to be positioned inside the container during cutting, while Yukon argued that “configured” simply meant “made,” so the pads only needed to be cut into shapes suitable for later placement.

Relying on Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court interpreted the disputed terms according to their ordinary meaning within the context of the entire patent. The court agreed with Yukon, concluding that the claim language meant the pads were made during the cutting process so that they] may be positioned inside the rigid container later. The court rejected Jones’s interpretation as an improper rewriting of the claim language. It also declined to give significant weight to the USPTO examiner’s comments because they similarly inverted the temporal structure of the claim. Citing Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co., 414 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court noted that examiner statements do not bind district courts during claim construction litigation.

Validity challenge. Further, the court was unpersuaded by Jones’s challenge to the patent's validity. Jones argued that Claims 1 and 2 were obvious in view of four prior-art references. Applying Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc., 566 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the court emphasized that issued patents carry a presumption of validity and that the challenger must raise a substantial question of invalidity.

Citing Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the court found that Jones failed to articulate a persuasive reason why a skilled artisan would combine the cited references. The court characterized Jones’s arguments as conclusory and noted that one reference taught away from using cotton, undermining Jones’s motivation-to-combine theory.

Irreparable harm. The court found that Yukon demonstrated likely injury absent injunctive relief. Yukon presented evidence showing that it lost all business from a major customer for three-piece cold-chain insulation products after Jones introduced the redesigned product. According to the record, that customer represented the majority of Yukon’s 2025 business. Yukon also showed that it reduced its workforce by more than 50%, scaled down operations at multiple distribution centers, and suffered price erosion from customers demanding lower prices.

The court rejected Jones’s argument that Yukon failed to establish a causal nexus between the alleged infringement and its injuries. Citing Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp., 846 F.3d 1190 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the court held that pre-issuance evidence of harm could support irreparable injury after patent issuance. The court further concluded that demand for the products stemmed from the three-piece design feature, satisfying the causal nexus requirement under Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 809 F.3d 633 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Equities. Additionally, the court determined that the balance of hardships favored Yukon because Yukon faced the possibility of shutting down its business absent an injunction. Although Jones argued that the injunction would disrupt customer supply chains, the court found that Yukon had sufficient inventory and operational capacity to satisfy market demand. The court further emphasized the public interest in protecting patent rights and encouraging innovation.

Conclusion. Thus, the court entered a preliminary injunction barring Jones and related entities from making, offering for sale, selling, advertising, or using the Accused Hinge-Break Product during the pendency of the litigation and ordered Yukon to post a $10,000 bond.

The Case is No. 5:25-cv-00007-MEO-DCK.

Judge: Orso, M.

Attorneys: Christina Davidson Trimmer (Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP) for Yukon Packaging, LLC. Bruce J. Rose (Alston & Bird, LLP) for Jones Sustainable Packaging, LLC.

Companies: Yukon Packaging, LLC; Jones Sustainable Packaging, LLC

Cases: Patent NorthCarolinaNews USPTO