Yukon Packaging LLC v. Jones Sustainable Packaging LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yukon Packaging, LLC (North Carolina)
  • Defendant: Jones Sustainable Packaging, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Shumaker, Loop, & Kendrick, LLP
• Case Identification: 5:25-cv-00007, W.D.N.C., 04/15/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant committing acts of infringement in the district and maintaining a regular and established place of business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's 3-piece insulated containers infringe five of its patents-covering both the container apparatus and the method of its formation-related to sustainable, fiber-based insulated shipping technology.
• Technical Context: The technology pertains to multi-piece insulated liners for shipping containers, a segment of the cold-chain packaging market critical for transporting temperature-sensitive goods like food and pharmaceuticals.
• Key Procedural History: This Verified Second Amended Complaint follows the court's prior issuance of a preliminary injunction against an earlier version of Defendant's product. The complaint alleges that Defendant subsequently developed a new "Accused Hinge-Break Product" in an attempt to design around the patents. The dispute is also contextualized by other litigation, including a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff's major customer against Defendant in Delaware for alleged diversion of sales.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-12-30	Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit ('264, '265, '562, '014, '110)
2025-01-14	U.S. Patent No. 12,195,264 ('264 Patent) Issued
2025-01-14	U.S. Patent No. 12,195,265 ('265 Patent) Issued
2025-01-14	U.S. Design Patent No. D1,057,562 ('562 Patent) Issued
2025-09-23	U.S. Patent No. 12,421,014 ('014 Patent) Issued
2025-10-23	Plaintiff serves First Amended Disclosures of Asserted Claims
2025-11-03	Yukon serves Second Set of Requests for Production
2025-12-31	Date after which Yukon allegedly received no further orders from customer Veritiv
2026-01-05	Veritiv Operating Company files suit against Jones Sustainable Packaging
2026-04-07	U.S. Patent No. 12,595,110 ('110 Patent) Issued
2026-04-15	Verified Second Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 12,195,264 - "Insulated Container"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,195,264, "Insulated Container," issued January 14, 2025 Compl. ¶29
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for insulated shipping containers that can be mass-produced inexpensively and effectively while using sustainable, recycled materials to reduce industrial waste Compl. ¶33 '264 Patent, col. 1:41-52
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an insulated container assembly consisting of a rigid outer box and "exactly three insulated pads" '264 Patent, col. 6:54-56 The system uses a first pad for the bottom, a second identical pad for the top, and a third, longer pad that is folded to form the four side walls, with all pads made from recycled waste fiber '264 Patent, abstract '264 Patent, col. 2:16-41 The specific arrangement, detailed in figures such as FIG. 1, creates a complete thermal enclosure within the rigid container.
  • Technical Importance: This three-pad configuration is presented as a manufacturing and logistical improvement over prior art, aiming to reduce costs and simplify assembly compared to more complex or single-piece insulation designs '264 Patent, col. 7:4-24
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint identifies exemplary Independent Claim 14 Compl. ¶35
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 14 include:
    • A rigid container with specified dimensional relationships between its sides.
    • A first insulated pad with a predetermined thickness and density.
    • A second insulated pad identical to the first.
    • A third insulated pad with the same thickness and density but a different geometry (longer than the width of the first pad but shorter than its perimeter).
    • A specific positional arrangement: the first pad on the bottom, the third pad positioned perpendicularly to form the sides, and the second pad positioned "atop the third insulated pad."
    • A material composition requirement for the third pad: "a quantity of recycled post-industrial, pre-consumer natural fiber, and synthetic fiber."
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert others Compl. ¶97

U.S. Patent No. 12,195,265 - "Method of Forming an Insulated Container"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,195,265, "Method of Forming an Insulated Container," issued January 14, 2025 Compl. ¶39
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a manufacturing method that is easy, recyclable, and capable of creating made-to-order insulated containers from industrial waste materials like post-consumer cotton or synthetic fiber Compl. ¶43 '265 Patent, col. 1:42-52
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a method of producing the three-pad insulation system. The process involves feeding recycled fiber into a machine (e.g., an airlay machine) to create a "continuous non-woven sheet," which is then crosscut by a blade at predetermined intervals to form the three distinct insulated pads with their required dimensions '265 Patent, col. 3:21-4:16 The method concludes with the steps of placing and folding these pads inside a rigid container.
  • Technical Importance: This method allows for efficient and customizable production of insulated liners by creating pads of varying lengths from a single, continuous feedstock, which contrasts with methods requiring separate molds or more complex cutting processes '265 Patent, col. 7:1-15
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint identifies exemplary Independent Claim 12 Compl. ¶45
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 12 include the steps of:
    • Providing a rigid container and a quantity of post-industrial, pre-consumer fiber.
    • Providing a processing machine (e.g., carding, airlay) to process the fiber into a "continuous non-woven sheet."
    • Providing a blade to crosscut the continuous sheet to form pads.
    • Feeding the fiber into the machine.
    • Cutting the continuous sheet to form a first, a second, and a third insulated pad with specific dimensional relationships.
    • Placing the first pad on the container bottom.
    • Placing and folding the third pad to form the side walls.
    • Placing the second pad on top of the third pad.
    • The resulting pads are specified as being "biodegradable in an anaerobic environment or recyclable."
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert others Compl. ¶111

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,057,562 - "Insulation for a Rigid Container"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,057,562, "Insulation for a Rigid Container," issued January 14, 2025 Compl. ¶49
• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for an insulation product, shown as a T-shaped, multi-segment pad in an unfolded state. The visual from the complaint shows a central spine of four connected rectangular segments with two separate, identical rectangular segments at each end of the cross-bar, representing the visual appearance of the three-piece insulation set before assembly Compl. p. 11, FIG. 1
• Asserted Claims: The single claim of the design patent for the ornamental design as shown and described Compl. ¶55
• Accused Features: The overall ornamental appearance of the "Accused 3-Piece Products" is alleged to infringe the claimed design Compl. ¶126

U.S. Patent No. 12,421,014 - "INSULATED CONTAINER AND METHOD OD [sic] FORMING AND LOADING AN INSULATED CONTAINER"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, titled "INSULATED CONTAINER AND METHOD OD [sic] FORMING AND LOADING AN INSULATED CONTAINER," covers an insulated container comprising a rigid box and a three-pad insulation system. It addresses needs for safe transport of temperature-sensitive materials, consistent density, and efficient manufacturing and assembly '014 Patent, col. 1:45-52 Compl. ¶60 The pad material is claimed to comprise recycled fiber, including plant-based or synthetic fiber '014 Patent, col. 10:22-28
• Asserted Claims: Exemplary Independent Claim 1 is identified in the complaint Compl. ¶62
• Accused Features: The "Accused 3-Piece Products" are alleged to infringe by their construction, composition, and method of assembly Compl. ¶138

U.S. Patent No. 12,595,110 - "Method of Forming Container Insulation"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a method of forming container insulation using an airlay processing machine and a die-cut press to create three insulated pads from a continuous non-woven sheet of recycled fiber '110 Patent, abstract A key aspect is the step of cutting the sheet to form the three pads, wherein the pads are configured during cutting for their final positions within a rigid container Compl. ¶70 Compl. ¶72
• Asserted Claims: Exemplary Independent Claim 1 is identified in the complaint Compl. ¶72
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the method used to form the "Accused 3-Piece Products" infringes the claimed method, and that the sale of these products constitutes infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) as articles made by a patented process Compl. ¶144 Compl. ¶145

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant's "3-piece insulated containers" Compl. ¶1, which collectively refers to an initial "Accused Product" and a subsequent "Accused Hinge-Break Product" developed after the court issued a preliminary injunction Compl. ¶13

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are "3-piece cold chain insulation" systems used to ship temperature-sensitive items Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶13 Defendant's website, as depicted in a screenshot, markets these as "Sustainable Cold Chain Solutions" for the "food and pharmaceutical industries," emphasizing "minimal environmental impact" and a "best-in-class manufacturing process" Compl. ¶83 Compl. p. 15, Ex. 11 The complaint alleges that Defendant is a direct competitor and that its products have diverted sales from Plaintiff's own "3-Piece Design" flagship product Compl. ¶27 Compl. ¶79 Compl. ¶93

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts in its body but references them as external exhibits not provided in the document Compl. ¶84 The following tables synthesize the infringement allegations based on the narrative descriptions of the patents and accused products within the complaint.

12,195,264 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
An insulated container comprising: a rigid container having a bottom, front, rear, left, and right sides...	The accused product is sold with an "external cardboard box" which serves as the rigid container.	¶15	col. 9:11-19
a first insulated pad having a predetermined thickness and density...; a second insulated pad identical to the first insulated pad; and a third insulated pad having the same thickness and density...	The accused product is a "3-piece cold chain insulation product," which allegedly corresponds to the claimed three-pad system.	¶13	col. 10:29-47
wherein the first insulated pad is positioned inside the rigid container in contact with the bottom... wherein the third insulated pad is positioned perpendicular... and wherein the second insulated pad is positioned atop the third insulated pad...	The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Accused 3-Piece Products" infringe the patents, implying they are assembled in the claimed configuration.	¶84; ¶85	col. 10:48-59
wherein the third insulated pad comprises a quantity of recycled post-industrial, pre-consumer natural fiber, and synthetic fiber.	The accused products are marketed as "Sustainable Cold Chain Solutions" with "minimal environmental impact," suggesting the use of recycled materials.	¶83	col. 10:60-63

12,195,265 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A method of forming an insulated container comprising the steps of: providing a rigid container...	Defendant sells its product with an "external cardboard box."	¶15	col. 9:16-22
providing a quantity of post-industrial, pre-consumer cotton or synthetic waste fiber;	Defendant's marketing of "Sustainable Cold Chain Solutions" is alleged to imply the use of such recycled materials in its manufacturing.	¶83	col. 9:23-24
providing a processing machine... to process... waste fiber into a continuous non-woven sheet...	The complaint alleges Defendant has a "best-in-class manufacturing process" to create its insulation, which Plaintiff alleges is the claimed process.	¶83	col. 9:25-31
cutting the continuous sheet... to form a first insulated pad, a second insulated pad, and a third insulated pad...	Defendant manufactures a "3-piece cold chain insulation product," which the complaint alleges is formed by practicing the claimed cutting and forming steps.	¶13; ¶111	col. 9:41-51
placing the first insulated pad... placing the third insulated pad... and placing the second insulated pad...	The complaint alleges that Defendant practices the patented method in forming the accused products.	¶111	col. 9:52-10:5

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the "Accused Hinge-Break Product" Compl. ¶13 meets the limitations of three separate and distinct "insulated pads" as recited in the claims of the '264 and '265 patents. The name suggests it may contain a "hinge" or connection between components, which could form the basis of a non-infringement argument that it is not a "3-piece" system in the claimed sense.
  • Evidentiary Questions (Method Claims): For the method patents ('265 and '110), the infringement case may depend on what discovery reveals about Defendant's actual manufacturing. The complaint alleges Defendant uses a "best-in-class manufacturing process" Compl. ¶83, but it raises the question of whether this process specifically involves forming a "continuous non-woven sheet" and then "crosscut[ting]" it, as required by the claims, or if a different manufacturing technique is used.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "insulated pad"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both the '264 (apparatus) and '265 (method) patents. Its construction is critical because the patents claim a system of "three and only three insulated pads" '264 Patent, col. 6:54-56 Defendant's "Accused Hinge-Break Product" Compl. ¶13 was allegedly developed post-injunction, suggesting it was designed to challenge this very definition, possibly by connecting the pieces. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will likely determine whether the "Hinge-Break" product literally infringes.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's focus is on the final assembled structure and its function. An argument may be made that components which are functionally distinct as a bottom, top, and folded wall structure meet the definition of three "pads," even if they are temporarily connected by a "hinge" for packaging or handling efficiency before being placed in the container.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims recite "a first insulated pad," "a second insulated pad," and "a third insulated pad" as separate elements. The patent drawings consistently depict three physically separate and non-contiguous components prior to assembly ('264 Patent, Fig. 1). The specification's explicit statement that the container consists of "exactly three insulated pads" '264 Patent, col. 6:54-56 may support an interpretation that requires the pads to be fully separate items.

• The Term: "biodegradable"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 12 of the '265 patent. Its definition is important for establishing infringement of this limitation, as well as for supporting the invention's "green" marketing angle. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if Defendant's product materials meet the standard defined in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is used generally in the claim, which could suggest its plain and ordinary meaning in the art.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The '265 Patent specification provides a potentially narrowing definition, stating "the term biodegradable may be defined to mean that each of the respective first, second, and third insulated pads will biodegrade completely within one year or less" '265 Patent, col. 2:60-63 Further, it incorporates by reference ASTM D5511 standards, which provide specific testing conditions for biodegradability '265 Patent, col. 1:20-22 This suggests a specific, testable standard must be met.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe for all five patents, stating that Defendant intentionally instructs customers and end-users to use the accused products in an infringing manner Compl. ¶105 Compl. ¶119 The complaint does not, however, cite specific evidence such as user manuals or marketing materials that provide such instructions.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all patents, based on the assertion that Defendant had the "requisite knowledge" of the patents and acted with "reckless disregard" Compl. ¶103 The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge, asserting that Defendant's predecessor closely followed Plaintiff's patent filings and that Defendant was "notified the moment that the issuance of the Patents-in-Suit became public knowledge" Compl. ¶87 Compl. ¶88 The allegation that Defendant developed the "Hinge-Break Product" after a preliminary injunction was issued may also be used to support the claim of willfulness Compl. ¶13

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claimed system of three distinct "insulated pads" be construed to read on Defendant's "Accused Hinge-Break Product," which may feature connections between its insulating components? The outcome of this claim construction battle will be pivotal for the question of literal infringement.
• A second central question will be one of evidentiary proof for the method claims: can Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant's manufacturing process, described in the complaint only through marketing language like "best-in-class manufacturing" Compl. ¶83, actually performs the specific steps recited in the '265 and '110 patents, such as creating and cutting a "continuous non-woven sheet"?
• Finally, the case will likely involve significant focus on willfulness and intent. Given the background of a prior preliminary injunction and the subsequent launch of an alleged design-around product, a key legal question will be whether Defendant's actions constitute "complete and reckless disregard" of Plaintiff's patent rights, which could expose Defendant to enhanced damages.