Yukon Packaging, LLC v. Jones Sustainable Packaging, LLC

Yukon Packaging · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Statesville Division · May 8, 2026 · No. 5:25-CV-00007-MEO-DCK

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina grants Yukon Packaging, LLC’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Jones Sustainable Packaging, LLC. The court concludes that Yukon is likely to succeed on its claim that Jones’s Accused Hinge-Break Product infringes Claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,595,110, and that Yukon has shown irreparable harm, favorable equities, and a public interest supporting injunctive relief. The order enjoins Jones and those acting in concert with it from making, using, marketing, or selling the disputed insulated shipping container.

Holdings

  1. Yukon made the required clear showing that it was likely to succeed on its claim that Jones's Accused Hinge-Break Product infringed claims 1 and 2 of Patent No. 12,595,110.
  2. Jones did not raise a substantial question that claims 1 and 2 of the '110 Patent were invalid for obviousness.
  3. Yukon established a likelihood of irreparable harm and a causal nexus between Jones's alleged infringement and the harm.
  4. The balance of equities and hardships and the public interest favored issuing the preliminary injunction.
  5. The argument that the injunction improperly upset the status quo did not preclude relief because preservation of the status quo is not the overriding aim of a preliminary injunction.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Yukon was likely to succeed on its claim that Jones's Accused Hinge-Break Product infringed claims 1 and 2 of Patent No. 12,595,110.
  2. Whether Jones raised a substantial question concerning the validity of claims 1 and 2 based on obviousness.
  3. Whether Yukon was likely to suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction, including whether it established a causal nexus between the alleged infringement and the harm.
  4. Whether the balance of equities and hardships favored an injunction.
  5. Whether an injunction was in the public interest.
  6. Whether issuing the injunction improperly altered rather than preserved the status quo.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (34)

  • 700 F.3d 524, 525 (Fed. Cir. 2012)(applied)
  • 106 F.4th 1369, 1374-77 (Fed. Cir. 2024)(applied)
  • 830 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(applied)
  • 555 U.S. 7, 20-24 (2008)(applied)
  • 602 U.S. 339, 346 (2024)(applied)
  • 24 F.4th 1391, 1398-99, 1403-05 (Fed. Cir. 2022)(applied)
  • 239 F.3d 1343, 1350-51, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001)(applied)
  • 237 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2001)(applied)
  • 108 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(applied)
  • 814 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(applied)

Showing top 10 of 34.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…