UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: INNOVATIO IP VENTURES, 

LLC, PATENT LITIGATION M DL No. 2303

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs in a District of Delaware

declaratory judgment action, Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco) and Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Motorola),

move for centralization in the District of Delaware or, alternatively, the Northern District of Illinois. 

This litigation currently consists of the four actions listed on Schedule A, which are pending in four

districts. 1

No party opposes centralization. Patentholder Innovatio IP Ventures LLC (Innovatio), which

initially opposed centralization but changed its position at oral argument, now supports centralization

in the Northern District of Illinois. Alleged infringers B & B Corporate Holdings, Inc.; Cosi, Inc.;

Dominick’s Supermarkets, Inc.; MEI-GSR Holdings LLC; and Meijer, Inc.; support plaintiffs’ motion

in its entirety. Caribou Coffee Co., Inc.; Netgear, Inc.; and Panera Bread Co. support centralization

in the District of Delaware. Accor North America (Accor) does not oppose centralization in the

Northern District of Illinois. 

 

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these four actions

involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties

and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All four actions share facts

related to the infringement of one or more of seventeen patents held by Innovatio, which relate to

applications in the field of wireless local area networks (WLAN), commonly referred to as “Wi-Fi”

technology. Innovatio’s WLAN patents include an array of apparatus, system and method claims

directed to an access point, a terminal or combinations including both. All actions can be expected

to share factual questions concerning such matters as the technology underlying the patents, prior art,

claim construction, and common defenses such as licensing of the component technology of the

allegedly infringing devices. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent

 The parties have notified the Panel of six related actions pending as follows: three actions in 1

the Northern District of Illinois, two actions in the Western District of Wisconsin and two actions in

the District of Delaware. These actions and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. 

See Rules 1.1(h), 7.1 and 7.2, R.P.J.P.M.L.

Case MDL No. 2303 Document 52 Filed 12/28/11 Page 1 of 3

11 C 9311

A TRUE COPY-ATTEST

MICHAEL W. DOBBINS, CLERK

 -

By: s/ WILLIE A. HAYNES

DEPUTY CLERK

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

 -

December 30, 2011

Case: 1:11-cv-09311 Document #: 38 Filed: 01/03/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1409
 - 2 -

pretrial rulings (particularly on claim construction issues), and conserve the resources of the parties,

their counsel and the judiciary.

We are persuaded that the Northern District of Illinois is an appropriate transferee district for

pretrial proceedings in this litigation. This district, where the first-filed action is pending, is a primary

or alternative choice for transferee forum for all but two responding parties. Moreover, since this

readily accessible district is home to the current patentholder and Motorola, a supplier of allegedly

infringing products, relevant documents and witnesses likely will be found there. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on

Schedule A and pending outside the Northern District of Illinois are transferred to the Northern

District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable James F. Holderman,

Jr., for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending in that district and

listed on Schedule A.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

_________________________________________

 John G. Heyburn II 

 Chairman

Kathryn H. Vratil W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.

Barbara S. Jones Paul J. Barbadoro

Marjorie O. Rendell Charles R. Breyer

Case: 1:11-cv-09311 Document #: 38 Filed: 01/03/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:1410 Case MDL No. 2303 Document 52 Filed 12/28/11 Page 2 of 3
IN RE: INNOVATIO IP VENTURES, 

LLC, PATENT LITIGATION M DL No. 2303

SCHEDULE A

District of Delaware

Cisco Systems Inc., et al. v. Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, C.A. No. 1:11-00425 

Middle District of Florida

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC v. B & B Corporate Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 8:11-01325 

Northern District of Illinois

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC v. ABP Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 1:11-01638 

District of Nevada

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC v. MEI-GSR Holdings LLC, C.A. No. 3:11-00343 

Case: 1:11-cv-09311 Document #: 38 Filed: 01/03/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:1411 Case MDL No. 2303 Document 52 Filed 12/28/11 Page 3 of 3