IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

INNOVATIO IP VENTURES, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JW MARRIOTT CHICAGO; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO ARLINGTON 

HEIGHTS/NORTH; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO ARLINGTON 

HEIGHTS/SOUTH; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO MIDWAY 

AIRPORT; 

RESIDENCE INN CHICAGO MIDWAY 

AIRPORT; 

FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES CHICAGO 

MIDWAY; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO 

BLOOMINGDALE; 

RESIDENCE INN CHICAGO 

BLOOMINGDALE; 

SPRINGHILL SUITES CHICAGO 

BOLINGBROOK; 

CHICAGO MARRIOTT SOUTHWEST AT 

BURR RIDGE; 

SPRINGHILL SUITES CHICAGO 

SOUTHWEST AT BURR 

RIDGE/HINSDALE; 

CHICAGO MARRIOTT AT MEDICAL 

DISTRICT/UIC; 

CHICAGO MARRIOTT DOWNTOWN 

MAGNIFICENT MILE; 

CHICAGO MARRIOTT MIDWAY; 

CHICAGO MARRIOTT O'HARE; 

RENAISSANCE BLACKSTONE 

CHICAGO HOTEL; 

RENAISSANCE CHICAGO 

DOWNTOWN HOTEL; 

RENAISSANCE CHICAGO O'HARE 

SUITES HOTEL; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO 

DOWNTOWN/MAGNIFICENT MILE; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO DOWNTOWN/ 

Consolidated Case No. 11 C 9308 (MDL 2303) 

Individual Case No. 11 C 6478 

Honorable James F. Holderman 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:29
2

RIVER NORTH; 

RESIDENCE INN CHICAGO 

DOWNTOWN/MAGNIFICENT MILE; 

RESIDENCE INN CHICAGO 

DOWNTOWN/RIVER NORTH; 

FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES CHICAGO 

DOWNTOWN; 

SPRINGHILL SUITES CHICAGO 

DOWNTOWN/RIVER NORTH; 

SPRINGHILL SUITES CHICAGO 

O'HARE; 

CHICAGO MARRIOTT SUITES 

DEERFIELD; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO DEERFIELD; 

RESIDENCE INN CHICAGO 

DEERFIELD; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO O'HARE (DES 

PLAINES); 

CHICAGO MARRIOTT SUITES 

DOWNERS GROVE; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO 

ELMHURST/OAKBROOK AREA; 

SPRINGHILL SUITES CHICAGO 

ELMHURST/OAKBROOK AREA; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO 

GLENVIEW/NORTHBROOK; 

FAIRFIELD INN CHICAGO GURNEE; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO HIGHLAND 

PARK/NORTHBROOK; 

CHICAGO MARRIOTT NORTHWEST; 

FAIRFIELD INN JOLIET 

NORTH/PLAINFIELD; 

FAIRFIELD INN JOLIET SOUTH; 

TOWNEPLACE SUITES JOLIET SOUTH; 

LINCOLNSHIRE MARRIOTT RESORT; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO 

LINCOLNSHIRE; 

SPRINGHILL SUITES CHICAGO 

(LINCOLNSHIRE); 

HICKORY RIDGE MARRIOTT 

CONFERENCE HOTEL; 

RESIDENCE INN CHICAGO LOMBARD; 

RESIDENCE INN CHICAGO LAKE 

FOREST/METTAWA; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO NAPERVILLE; 

FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES CHICAGO 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 2 of 26 PageID #:30
3

NAPERVILLE; 

FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES CHICAGO 

NAPERVILLE/AURORA; 

TOWNEPLACE SUITES CHICAGO 

NAPERVILLE; 

RENAISSANCE CHICAGO NORTH 

SHORE HOTEL; 

CHICAGO MARRIOTT OAK BROOK; 

OAK BROOK HILLS MARRIOTT 

RESORT; 

RESIDENCE INN CHICAGO OAK 

BROOK; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO OAKBROOK 

TERRACE; 

FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES OTTAWA 

STARVED ROCK AREA; 

FAIRFIELD INN PERU; 

COURTYARD ROCKFORD; 

RESIDENCE INN ROCKFORD; 

FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES ROCKFORD; 

CHICAGO MARRIOTT SUITES O'HARE 

(ROSEMONT); 

RESIDENCE INN CHICAGO O'HARE 

(ROSEMONT); 

RENAISSANCE SCHAUMBURG 

CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO 

SCHAUMBURG; 

RESIDENCE INN CHICAGO 

SCHAUMBURG; 

SPRINGHILL SUITES CHICAGO 

SCHAUMBURG; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO ST. CHARLES; 

FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES CHICAGO 

ST. CHARLES; 

FAIRFIELD INN CHICAGO TINLEY 

PARK; 

RESIDENCE INN CHICAGO 

NAPERVILLE/WARRENVILLE; 

SPRINGHILL SUITES CHICAGO 

NAPERVILLE/WARRENVILLE; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO 

WAUKEGAN/GURNEE; 

RESIDENCE INN CHICAGO 

WAUKEGAN/GURNEE; 

SPRINGHILL SUITES CHICAGO 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 3 of 26 PageID #:31
4

WAUKEGAN/GURNEE; 

COURTYARD CHICAGO ELGIN/WEST 

DUNDEE; 

TOWNEPLACE SUITES CHICAGO 

ELGIN/WEST DUNDEE; 

GFII DVI CARDEL WOOD DALE, LLC 

d/b/a COURTYARD MARRIOTT WOOD 

DALE; 

LA QUINTA INN & SUITES 

BOLINGBROOK; and 

LA QUINTA INN CHICAGO O'HARE 

AIRPORT, 

Defendants. 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

 For its First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Plaintiff Innovatio IP Ventures, 

LLC (“Innovatio”), by and through its undersigned counsel, alleges against the Defendants – as 

particularly identified below – as follows: 

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Innovatio is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the 

State of Delaware and has a place of business at 22 West Washington Street, Suite 1500, 

Chicago, Illinois 60602. 

2. On information and belief, Defendant JW Marriott Chicago owns and operates a 

hotel at 151 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603. 

3. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago Arlington 

Heights/North owns and operates a hotel at 3700 North Wilke Road, Arlington Heights, Illinois 

60004. 

4. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago Courtyard Chicago 

Arlington Heights/South owns and operates a hotel at 100 West Algonquin Road, Arlington 

Heights, IL 60005. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 4 of 26 PageID #:32
5

5. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago Midway Airport owns 

and operates a hotel at 6610 South Cicero Avenue, Bedford Park, Illinois 60638. 

6. On information and belief, Defendant Residence Inn Chicago Midway Airport 

owns and operates a hotel at 6638 South Cicero Avenue, Bedford Park, Illinois 60638. 

7. On information and belief, Defendant Fairfield Inn & Suites Chicago Midway 

owns and operates a hotel at 6630 South Cicero Avenue, Bedford Park, Illinois 60638. 

8. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago Bloomingdale owns and 

operates a hotel at 275 Knollwood Drive, Bloomingdale, Illinois 60108. 

9. On information and belief, Defendant Residence Inn Chicago Bloomingdale owns 

and operates a hotel at 295 Knollwood Drive, Bloomingdale, Illinois 60108. 

10. On information and belief, Defendant SpringHill Suites Chicago Bolingbrook 

owns and operates a hotel at 125 Remington Boulevard, Bolingbrook, Illinois 60440. 

11. On information and belief, Defendant Chicago Marriott Southwest at Burr Ridge 

owns and operates a hotel at 1200 Burr Ridge Parkway, Burr Ridge, Illinois 60527. 

12. On information and belief, Defendant SpringHill Suites Chicago Southwest at 

Burr Ridge/Hinsdale owns and operates a hotel at 15W90 North Frontage Road, Burr Ridge, 

Illinois 60527. 

13. On information and belief, Defendant Chicago Marriott at Medical District/UIC 

owns and operates a hotel at 625 South Ashland Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60607. 

14. On information and belief, Defendant Chicago Marriott Downtown Magnificent 

Mile owns and operates a hotel at 540 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611. 

15. On information and belief, Defendant Chicago Marriott Midway owns and 

operates a hotel at 6520 South Cicero Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60638. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 5 of 26 PageID #:33
6

16. On information and belief, Defendant Chicago Marriott O'Hare owns and operates 

a hotel at 8535 West Higgins Road, Chicago, Illinois 60631. 

17. On information and belief, Renaissance Blackstone Chicago Hotel owns and 

operates a hotel at 636 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60605. 

18. On information and belief, Defendant Renaissance Chicago Downtown Hotel 

owns and operates a hotel at 1 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60601. 

19. On information and belief, Defendant Renaissance Chicago O'Hare Suites Hotel 

owns and operates a hotel at 8500 West Bryn Mawr Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60631. 

20. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago Downtown/Magnificent 

Mile owns and operates a hotel at 165 East Ontario Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611. 

21. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago Downtown/River North 

owns and operates a hotel at 30 East Hubbard, Chicago, Illinois 60611. 

22. On information and belief, Defendant Residence Inn Chicago 

Downtown/Magnificent Mile owns and operates a hotel at 201 East Walton Place, Chicago, 

Illinois 60611. 

23. On information and belief, Defendant Residence Inn Chicago Downtown/River 

North owns and operates a hotel at 410 North Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60654. 

24. On information and belief, Defendant Fairfield Inn & Suites Chicago Downtown 

owns and operates a hotel at 216 East Ontario Street Chicago, Illinois 60611. 

25. On information and belief, Defendant SpringHill Suites Chicago 

Downtown/River North owns and operates a hotel at 410 North Dearborn Street, Chicago, 

Illinois 60654. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 6 of 26 PageID #:34
7

26. On information and belief, Defendant SpringHill Suites Chicago O'Hare owns and 

operates a hotel under at 8101 West Higgins Road, Chicago, Illinois 60631. 

27. On information and belief, Defendant Chicago Marriott Suites Deerfield owns 

and operates a hotel at 2 Parkway North, Deerfield, Illinois 60015. 

28. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago Deerfield owns and 

operates a hotel at 800 Lake Cook Road, Deerfield, Illinois 60015. 

29. On information and belief, Defendant Residence Inn Chicago Deerfield owns and 

operates a hotel at 530 Lake Cook Road, Deerfield, Illinois 60015. 

30. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago O'Hare (Des Plaines) 

owns and operates a hotel at 2950 South River Road, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018. 

31. On information and belief, Defendant Chicago Marriott Suites Downers Grove 

owns and operates a hotel at 1500 Opus Place, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515. 

32. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago Elmhurst/Oakbrook 

Area owns and operates a hotel at 370 North Illinois Route 83, Elmhurst, Illinois 60126. 

33. On information and belief, Defendant SpringHill Suites Chicago 

Elmhurst/Oakbrook Area owns and operates a hotel at 410 West Lake Street, Elmhurst, Illinois 

60126. 

34. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago Glenview/Northbrook 

owns and operates a hotel at 1801 Milwaukee Avenue, Glenview, Illinois 60025. 

35. On information and belief, Defendant Fairfield Inn Chicago Gurnee owns and 

operates a hotel at 6090 Gurnee Mills Circle East, Gurnee, Illinois 60031. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 7 of 26 PageID #:35
8

36. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago Highland 

Park/Northbrook owns and operates a hotel at 1505 Lake Cook Road, Highland Park, Illinois 

60035. 

37. On information and belief, Defendant Chicago Marriott Northwest owns and 

operates a hotel at 4800 Hoffmann Boulevard, Hoffman Estates, Illinois 60192. 

38. On information and belief, Defendant Fairfield Inn Joliet North/Plainfield owns 

and operates a hotel at 3239 Norman Avenue, Joliet, Illinois 60435. 

39. On information and belief, Defendant Fairfield Inn Joliet South owns and operates 

a hotel at 1501 Riverboat Center Drive, Joliet, Illinois 60436. 

40. On information and belief, Defendant TownePlace Suites Joliet South owns and 

operates a hotel at 1515 Riverboat Center Drive, Joliet, Illinois 60431. 

41. On information and belief, Defendant Lincolnshire Marriott Resort owns and 

operates a hotel at Ten Marriott Drive, Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069. 

42. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago Lincolnshire owns and 

operates a hotel at 505 Milwaukee Avenue, Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069. 

43. On information and belief, Defendant SpringHill Suites Chicago (Lincolnshire) 

owns and operates a hotel at 300 Marriott Drive, Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069. 

44. On information and belief, Defendant Hickory Ridge Marriott Conference Hotel 

owns and operates a hotel at 1195 Summerhill Drive, Lisle, Illinois 60532. 

45. On information and belief, Defendant Residence Inn Chicago Lombard owns and 

operates a hotel at 2001 South Highland Avenue, Lombard, Illinois 60148. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 8 of 26 PageID #:36
9

46. On information and belief, Defendant Residence Inn Chicago Lake 

Forest/Mettawa owns and operates a hotel at 26325 North Riverwoods Boulevard, Mettawa, 

Illinois 60045. 

47. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago Naperville owns and 

operates a hotel at 1155 East Diehl Road, Naperville, Illinois 60563. 

48. On information and belief, Defendant Fairfield Inn & Suites Chicago Naperville 

owns and operates a hotel at 1820 Abriter Court, Naperville, Illinois 60563. 

49. On information and belief, Defendant Fairfield Inn & Suites Chicago 

Naperville/Aurora owns and operates a hotel at 1847 West Diehl Road, Naperville, Illinois 

60563. 

50. On information and belief, Defendant TownePlace Suites Chicago Naperville 

owns and operates a hotel at 1843 West Diehl Road, Naperville, Illinois 60563. 

51. On information and belief, Defendant Renaissance Chicago North Shore Hotel 

owns and operates a hotel at 933 Skokie Boulevard, Northbrook, Illinois 60062. 

52. On information and belief, Defendant Chicago Marriott Oak Brook owns and 

operates a hotel at 1401 West 22nd Street, Oak Brook, Illinois 60523. 

53. On information and belief, Defendant Oak Brook Hills Marriott Resort owns and 

operates a hotel at 3500 Midwest Road, Oak Brook, Illinois 60523. 

54. On information and belief, Defendant Residence Inn Chicago Oak Brook owns 

and operates a hotel at 790 Jorie Boulevard, Oak Brook, Illinois 60523. 

55. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago Oakbrook Terrace owns 

and operates a hotel at 6 Transam Plaza Drive, Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois 60181. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 9 of 26 PageID #:37
10

56. On information and belief, Defendant Fairfield Inn & Suites Ottawa Starved Rock 

Area owns and operates a hotel at 3000 Fairfield Lane, Ottawa, Illinois 61350. 

57. On information and belief, Defendant Fairfield Inn Peru owns and operates a 

hotel at 4385 Venture Drive, Peru, Illinois 61354. 

58. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Rockford owns and operates a 

hotel at 7676 East State Street, Rockford, Illinois 61108. 

59. On information and belief, Defendant Residence Inn Rockford owns and operates 

a hotel at 7542 Colosseum Drive, Rockford, Illinois 61107. 

60. On information and belief, Defendant Fairfield Inn & Suites Rockford owns and 

operates a hotel at 7651 Walton Street, Rockford, Illinois 61108. 

61. On information and belief, Defendant Chicago Marriott Suites O'Hare 

(Rosemont) owns and operates a hotel at 6155 North River Road, Rosemont, Illinois 60018. 

62. On information and belief, Defendant Residence Inn Chicago O'Hare (Rosemont) 

owns and operates a hotel at 7101 Chestnut Street, Rosemont, Illinois 60018. 

63. On information and belief, Defendant Renaissance Schaumburg Convention 

Center Hotel owns and operates a hotel at 1551 North Thoreau Drive, Schaumburg, Illinois 

60173. 

64. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago Schaumburg owns and 

operates a hotel at 1311 American Lane, Schaumburg, Illinois 60173. 

65. On information and belief, Defendant Residence Inn Chicago Schaumburg owns 

and operates a hotel at 1610 McConnor Parkway, Schaumburg, Illinois 60173. 

66. On information and belief, Defendant SpringHill Suites Chicago Schaumburg 

owns and operates a hotel at 1550 McConnor Parkway, Schaumburg, Illinois 60173. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 10 of 26 PageID #:38
11

67. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago St. Charles owns and 

operates a hotel at 700 Courtyard Drive, St. Charles, Illinois 60174. 

68. On information and belief, Defendant Fairfield Inn & Suites Chicago St. Charles 

owns and operates a hotel at 2096 Bricher Road, St. Charles, Illinois 60174. 

69. On information and belief, Defendant Fairfield Inn Chicago Tinley Park owns and 

operates a hotel at 18511 North Creek Drive, Tinley Park, Illinois 60477. 

70. On information and belief, Defendant Residence Inn Chicago 

Naperville/Warrenville owns and operates a hotel at 28500 Bella Vista Parkway, Warrenville, 

Illinois 60555. 

71. On information and belief, Defendant SpringHill Suites Chicago 

Naperville/Warrenville owns and operates a hotel at 4305 Weaver Parkway, Warrenville, Illinois 

60555. 

72. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago Waukegan/Gurnee 

owns and operates a hotel at 3800 Northpoint Boulevard, Waukegan, Illinois 60085. 

73. On information and belief, Defendant Residence Inn Chicago Waukegan/Gurnee 

owns and operates a hotel at 1440 South White Oak Drive, Waukegan, Illinois 60085. 

74. On information and belief, Defendant SpringHill Suites Chicago 

Waukegan/Gurnee owns and operates a hotel at 4101 Fountain Square Place, Waukegan, Illinois 

60085. 

75. On information and belief, Defendant Courtyard Chicago Elgin/West Dundee 

owns and operates a hotel at 2175 Marriott Drive, West Dundee, Illinois 60118. 

76. On information and belief, Defendant TownePlace Suites Chicago Elgin/West 

Dundee owns and operates a hotel at 2185 Marriott Drive, West Dundee, Illinois 60118. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 11 of 26 PageID #:39
12

77. Defendant GFII DVI Cardel Wood Dale, LLC d/b/a Courtyard Marriott Wood 

Dale (“GFII”) owns a hotel by the name of “Courtyard Chicago Wood Dale/Itasca” at 900 North 

Wood Dale Road, Wood Dale, Illinois 60191. Defendant GFII is a Delaware limited liability 

company authorized to conduct business in Illinois. Defendant GFII operates under the assumed 

name “Courtyard Marriott Wood Dale.” Defendant GFII utilizes a professional registered agent, 

National Corporate Research, which is located at 520 South Second Street, #403, Springfield, 

Illinois 62701. 

78. On information and belief, Defendant La Quinta Inn & Suites Bolingbrook owns 

and operates a hotel at 225 West South Frontgate Road, Bolingbrook, Illinois 60440. 

79. On information and belief, Defendant La Quinta Inn Chicago O’Hare Airport 

owns and operates a hotel at 1900 East Oakton Street, Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007. 

80. The Defendants identified in paragraphs 2-79 above are hereinafter referred to 

collectively as “the Defendants.” 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

81. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et 

seq. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 

and 1338(a). 

82. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants. 

83. Venue for this action is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 

1400(b). 

THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 

84. On March 30, 2004, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“the 

USPTO”) duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 6,714,559 (“the ‘559 Patent”) titled 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 12 of 26 PageID #:40
13

“Redundant Radio Frequency Network Having A Roaming Terminal Communication Protocol.” 

A copy of the ‘559 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 

85. On June 10, 2008, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,386,002 

(“the ‘002 Patent”) titled “Redundant Radio Frequency Network Having A Roaming Terminal 

Communication Protocol.” A copy of the ‘002 Patent is attached as Exhibit B. 

86. On May 19, 2009, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,535,921 

(“the ‘921 Patent”) titled “Redundant Radio Frequency Network Having A Roaming Terminal 

Communication Protocol.” A copy of the ‘921 Patent is attached as Exhibit C. 

87. On June 16, 2009, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,548,553 

(“the ‘553 Patent”) titled “Redundant Radio Frequency Network Having A Roaming Terminal 

Communication Protocol.” A copy of the ‘553 Patent is attached as Exhibit D. 

88. On April 14, 1998, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 5,740,366 

(“the ‘366 Patent”) titled “Communication Network Having Plurality Of Bridging Nodes Which 

Transmit A Beacon To Terminal Nodes In Power Saving State That It Has Messages Awaiting 

Delivery.” A copy of the ‘366 Patent is attached as Exhibit E. 

89. On August 17, 1999, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 

5,940,771 (“the ‘771 Patent”) titled “Network Supporting Roaming, Sleeping Terminals.” A 

copy of the ‘771 Patent is attached as Exhibit F. 

90. On April 16, 2002, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 6,374,311 

(“the ‘311 Patent”) titled “Communication Network Having A Plurality Of Bridging Nodes 

Which Transmit A Beacon To Terminal Nodes In Power Saving State That It Has Messages 

Awaiting Delivery.” A copy of the ‘311 Patent is attached as Exhibit G. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 13 of 26 PageID #:41
14

91. On November 25, 2008, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 

7,457,646 (“the ‘646 Patent”) titled “Radio Frequency Local Area Network.” A copy of the ‘646 

Patent is attached as Exhibit H. 

92. On August 13, 1996, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) 

duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 5,546,397 (“the ‘397 Patent”) titled “High Reliability 

Access Point For Wireless Local Area Network.” A copy of the ‘397 Patent is attached as 

Exhibit I. 

93. On December 1, 1998, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 

5,844,893 (“the ‘893 Patent”) titled “System For Coupling Host Computer Means With Base 

Transceiver Units On A Local Area Network.” A copy of the ‘893 Patent is attached as Exhibit J. 

94. On December 16, 2003, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 

6,665,536 (“the ‘536 Patent”) titled “Local Area Network Having Multiple Channel Wireless 

Access.” A copy of the ‘536 Patent is attached as Exhibit K. 

95. On February 24, 2004, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 

6,697,415 (“the ‘415 Patent”) titled “Spread Spectrum Transceiver Module Utilizing Multiple 

Mode Transmission.” A copy of the ‘415 Patent is attached as Exhibit L. 

96. On March 14, 2006, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 

7,013,138 (“the ‘138 Patent”) titled “Local Area Network Having Multiple Channel Wireless 

Access.” A copy of the ‘138 Patent is attached as Exhibit M. 

97. On May 4, 2010, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,710,907 

(“the ‘907 Patent”) titled “Local Area Network Having Multiple Channel Wireless Access.” A 

copy of the ‘907 Patent is attached as Exhibit N. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 14 of 26 PageID #:42
15

98. On March 29, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 

7,916,747 (“the ‘747 Patent”) titled “Redundant Radio Frequency Network Having A Roaming 

Terminal Communication Protocol.” A copy of the ‘747 Patent is attached as Exhibit O. 

99. On January 18, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 

7,873,343 (“the ‘343 Patent”) titled “Communication Network Terminal With Sleep Capability.” 

A copy of the ‘343 Patent is attached as Exhibit P. 

100. On May 19, 2009, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,536,167 

(“the ‘167 Patent”) titled “Network Supporting Roaming, Sleeping Terminals.” A copy of the 

‘167 Patent is attached as Exhibit Q. 

101. The seventeen patents identified in paragraphs 84-100 are hereinafter referred to 

collectively as the “WLAN Patents.” 

102. Innovatio owns all rights, title, and interest in and to, and has standing to sue for 

infringement of, the WLAN Patents, including the right to sue for and collect past damages. 

COUNT ONE 

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘559 PATENT 

103. Innovatio repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 - 102 

as if fully set forth herein. 

104. Each of the Defendants has infringed and continue to infringe one or more claims 

of the ‘559 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, in this judicial district, wireless 

local area network products (“WLAN Products”) to provide wireless network access to their 

customers, guests, employees, and/or the public, and/or in their business operations, where such 

WLAN Products practice the methods of, by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 6, 

7, and 8 of the ‘559 Patent. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 15 of 26 PageID #:43
16

COUNT TWO 

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘002 PATENT 

105. Innovatio repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 - 102 

as if fully set forth herein. 

106. Each of the Defendants has infringed and continue to infringe one or more claims 

of the ‘002 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, in this judicial district, WLAN 

Products to provide wireless network access to their customers, guests, employees, and/or the 

public, and/or in their business operations, where such WLAN Products practice the methods of, 

by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 14-16, 18, and 19 of the ‘002 Patent. 

COUNT THREE 

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘921 PATENT 

107. Innovatio repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 - 102 

as if fully set forth herein. 

108. Each of the Defendants has infringed and continue to infringe one or more claims 

of the ‘921 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, in this judicial district, WLAN 

Products to provide wireless network access to their customers, guests, employees, and/or the 

public, and/or in their business operations, where such WLAN Products practice the methods of, 

by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 of the ‘921 Patent. 

COUNT FOUR 

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘553 PATENT 

109. Innovatio repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 - 102 

as if fully set forth herein. 

110. Each of the Defendants has infringed and continue to infringe one or more claims 

of the ‘553 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, in this judicial district, WLAN 

Products to provide wireless network access to their customers, guests, employees, and/or the 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 16 of 26 PageID #:44
17

public, and/or in their business operations, where such WLAN Products practice the methods of, 

by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 10-12, 17, 19, and 20 of the ‘553 Patent. 

COUNT FIVE 

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘366 PATENT 

111. Innovatio repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1- 102 

as if fully set forth herein. 

112. Innovatio believes that a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 

discovery will likely show that each of the Defendants has infringed and continues to infringe 

one or more claims of the ‘366 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, in this judicial 

district, WLAN Products to provide wireless network access to their customers, guests, 

employees, and/or the public, and/or in each of their business operations, where such WLAN 

Products infringe, by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 5-7, 9-17, 19-24, 26-29, 

and 32 of the ‘366 Patent. 

COUNT SIX 

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘771 PATENT 

113. Innovatio repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 - 102 

as if fully set forth herein. 

114. Innovatio believes that a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 

discovery will likely show that each of the Defendants has infringed and continues to infringe 

one or more claims of the ‘771 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, in this judicial 

district, WLAN Products to provide wireless network access to their customers, guests, 

employees, and/or the public, and/or in each of their business operations, where such WLAN 

Products infringe, by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 1-7 of the ‘771 Patent. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 17 of 26 PageID #:45
18

COUNT SEVEN 

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘311 PATENT 

115. Innovatio repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 - 102 

as if fully set forth herein. 

116. Innovatio believes that a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 

discovery will likely show that each of the Defendants has infringed and continues to infringe 

one or more claims of the ‘311 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, in this judicial 

district, WLAN Products to provide wireless network access to their customers, guests, 

employees, and/or the public, and/or in each of their business operations, where such WLAN 

Products infringe, by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 20-24, 26-30, 32-37, 39-

41, 43-51, 53-56, 60, and 64 of the ‘311 Patent. 

COUNT EIGHT 

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘646 PATENT 

117. Innovatio repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 - 102 

as if fully set forth herein. 

118. Innovatio believes that a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 

discovery will likely show that each of the Defendants has infringed and continues to infringe 

one or more claims of the ‘646 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, in this judicial 

district, WLAN Products to provide wireless network access to their customers, guests, 

employees, and/or the public, and/or in each of their business operations, where such WLAN 

Products practice the methods of, by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 14-17, 

19-22, 26-35, 39-40, 43-45, 47, 49-51, 53-56, 59-64, 66-69, 71-73, 79, 82-89, 91-94, 98-104, 107, 

108, 111, 112, 114-123, 125-128, 130, 135-137, 143, and 144 of the ‘646 Patent. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 18 of 26 PageID #:46
19

COUNT NINE 

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘397 PATENT 

119. Innovatio repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 - 102 

as if fully set forth herein. 

120. Innovatio believes that a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 

discovery will likely show that each of the Defendants has infringed and continues to infringe 

one or more claims of the ‘397 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, in this judicial 

district, WLAN Products to provide wireless network access to their customers, guests, 

employees, and/or the public, and/or in each of their business operations, where such WLAN 

Products infringe, by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 1-5 of the ‘397 Patent. 

COUNT TEN 

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘893 PATENT 

121. Innovatio repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 - 102 

as if fully set forth herein. 

122. Innovatio believes that a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 

discovery will likely show that each of the Defendants has infringed and continues to infringe 

one or more claims of the ‘893 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, in this judicial 

district, WLAN Products to provide wireless network access to their customers, guests, 

employees, and/or the public, and/or in each of their business operations, where such WLAN 

Products infringe, by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 7-11 of the ‘893 Patent. 

COUNT ELEVEN 

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘536 PATENT 

123. Innovatio repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 - 102 

as if fully set forth herein. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 19 of 26 PageID #:47
20

124. Innovatio believes that a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 

discovery will likely show that each of the Defendants has infringed and continues to infringe 

one or more claims of the ‘536 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, in this judicial 

district, WLAN Products to provide wireless network access to their customers, guests, 

employees, and/or the public, and/or in each of their business operations, where such WLAN 

Products infringe, by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, 

20, and 49 of the ‘536 Patent. 

COUNT TWELVE 

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘415 PATENT 

125. Innovatio repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 - 102 

as if fully set forth herein. 

126. Innovatio believes that a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 

discovery will likely show that each of the Defendants has infringed and continues to infringe 

one or more claims of the ‘415 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, in this judicial 

district, WLAN Products to provide wireless network access to their customers, guests, 

employees, and/or the public, and/or in each of their business operations, where such WLAN 

Products infringe, by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 11, 12, and 15 of the 

‘415 Patent. 

COUNT THIRTEEN 

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘138 PATENT 

127. Innovatio repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 - 102 

as if fully set forth herein. 

128. Innovatio believes that a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 

discovery will likely show that each of the Defendants has infringed and continues to infringe 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 20 of 26 PageID #:48
21

one or more claims of the ‘138 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, in this judicial 

district, WLAN Products to provide wireless network access to their customers, guests, 

employees, and/or the public, and/or in each of their business operations, where such WLAN 

Products infringe, by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 

18, 21, 24, 26, 28, and 36 of the ‘138 Patent. 

COUNT FOURTEEN 

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘907 PATENT 

129. Innovatio repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 - 102 

as if fully set forth herein. 

130. Innovatio believes that a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 

discovery will likely show that each of the Defendants has infringed and continues to infringe 

one or more claims of the ‘907 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, in this judicial 

district, WLAN Products to provide wireless network access to their customers, guests, 

employees, and/or the public, and/or in each of their business operations, where such WLAN 

Products infringe, by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, 

20, 21, 23, 24, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, and 46-50 of the ‘907 Patent. 

COUNT FIFTEEN 

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘747 PATENT 

131. Innovatio repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 - 102 

as if fully set forth herein. 

132. Innovatio believes that a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 

discovery will likely show that each of the Defendants has infringed and continues to infringe 

one or more claims of the ‘747 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, in this judicial 

district, WLAN Products to provide wireless network access to their customers, guests, 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 21 of 26 PageID #:49
22

employees, and/or the public, and/or in each of their business operations, where such WLAN 

Products infringe, by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 13, 16, 17, 

and 20-25 of the ‘747 Patent. 

COUNT SIXTEEN 

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘343 PATENT 

133. Innovatio repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 - 102 

as if fully set forth herein. 

134. Innovatio believes that a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 

discovery will likely show that each of the Defendants has infringed and continues to infringe 

one or more claims of the ‘343 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, in this judicial 

district, WLAN Products to provide wireless network access to their customers, guests, 

employees, and/or the public, and/or in each of their business operations, where such WLAN 

Products infringe, by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 1-6, 8-12, 15-20, 22, 23, 

25, 28-30, 31-36, 38-42, 45-50, 52, 53, 55, and 58-60 of the ‘343 Patent. 

COUNT SEVENTEEN 

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘167 PATENT 

135. Innovatio repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 - 102 

as if fully set forth herein. 

136. Innovatio believe that a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 

discovery will likely show that each of the Defendants has infringed and continues to infringe 

one or more claims of the ‘167 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, in this judicial 

district, WLAN Products to provide wireless network access to their customers, guests, 

employees, and/or the public, and/or in each of their business operations, where such WLAN 

Products practice the methods of, by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 73-77, 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 22 of 26 PageID #:50
23

79-83, 85, 89-97, 100, 102-107, 109-113, 115, 119-127, 130, 132-134, and 203 of the ‘167 

Patent. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, Innovatio respectfully requests entry of judgment in its favor and the 

following relief, including: 

 A. That each of the Defendants be adjudged to have infringed one or more claims of 

each of the WLAN Patents; 

B. That each of the Defendants and all related entities and their officers, agents, 

employees, representatives, servants, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or 

participation with any of them, directly or indirectly, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined 

from using, or contributing or inducing the use of, any WLAN Product, system or network that 

infringes any WLAN Patent; 

 C. That each of the Defendants account for damages sustained by Innovatio as a 

result of each of the Defendants’ infringement of the WLAN Patents, including both pre- and 

post-judgment interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284; and 

 D. That the Court grant Innovatio such other and further relief as the Court may 

deem just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND

 Innovatio demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 23 of 26 PageID #:51
24

Dated: February 17, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Matthew G. McAndrews 

 Matthew G. McAndrews 

 Raymond P. Niro, Jr. 

 Brian E. Haan 

 Gabriel I. Opatken 

 NIRO, HALLER & NIRO 

 181 West Madison St., Suite 4600 

 Chicago, Illinois 60602 

 Telephone: (312) 236-0733 

 Facsimile: (312) 236-3137 

 E-mail: mmcandrews@nshn.com

 E-mail: rnirojr@nshn.com 

 E-mail: bhaan@nshn.com 

 E-mail: gopatken@nshn.com 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

 INNOVATIO IP VENTURES, LLC 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 24 of 26 PageID #:52
25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on February 17, 2012 the foregoing 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 

was filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification 

of such filing to all counsel of record in Consolidated Case No. 11 C 9308 (MDL 2303) in 

accordance with Local Rule 5.9. 

The following counsel of record have appeared in Individual Case No. 11 C 6478: 

Eric J Schwalb 

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Suite 1200 

Washington, DC 20006 

(202)659-6600 

eschwalb@eckertseamans.com

Sandy Garfinkel 

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 

600 Grant Street 

44th Floor 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

(412) 566-6868 

sgarfinkel@eckertseamans.com

Attorneys for Defendants Chicago Marriott at 

Medical District/UIC, Courtyard Chicago St. 

Charles, SpringHill Suites Chicago 

Waukegan/Gurnee, Courtyard Chicago 

Bloomingdale, Courtyard Chicago 

Elmhurst/Oakbrook Area, Fairfield Inn 

Chicago Gurnee, Fairfield Inn Joliet South, 

Residence Inn Chicago Bloomingdale, 

Courtyard Chicago Glenview/Northbrook, 

Fairfield Inn & Suites Chicago Downtown, 

Fairfield Inn & Suites Chicago 

Naperville/Aurora, Fairfield Inn & Suites 

Chicago St. Charles, Springhill Suites Chicago 

Naperville/Warrenville, and SpringHill Suites 

Chicago O’Hare. 

F. Joseph Jaskowiak 

Hoeppner Wagner & Evans LLP 

1000 East 80th Place 

6th Floor South 

Merrillville, IN 46410 

(219)769-6552 

jjaskowiak@hwelaw.com

Richard M Davis 

Hoeppner Wagner & Evans Llp 

103 E Lincolnway 

Valparaiso, IN 46383 

(219) 464-4961 

rdavis@hwelaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants Chicago Marriott 

Midway, Courtyard Chicago 

Downtown/Magnificent Mile, Courtyard 

Chicago Midway Airport, Courtyard Chicago 

Schaumburg, Fairfield Inn & Suites Chicago 

Midway, Fairfield Inn Chicago Gurnee, 

Residence Inn Chicago Downtown/River 

North, Residence Inn Chicago Lake 

Forest/Mettawa, Residence Inn Chicago 

Midway Airport, Residence Inn Chicago 

Naperville/Warrenville, Residence Inn 

Chicago Schaumburg, SpringHill Suites 

Chicago Downtown/River North, and 

SpringHill Suites Chicago Schaumburg 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 25 of 26 PageID #:53
26

Andrew N. Plasz 

Crowley Barrett & Karaba, Ltd. 

20 S. Clark Street, Ste. 2310 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

aplasz@cbklaw.com 

Attorney for Defendants SpringHill Suites 

Chicago Elmhurst/Oakbrook Area and 

SpringHill Suites Chicago Southwest at Burr 

Ridge/Hinsdale. 

Anthony Richard Zeuli 

Christopher C. Davis 

Shane Allen Brunner 

Merchant & Gould P.C. 

3200 IDS Center 

80 South Eighth Street, S-3200 

Minneapolis, MN 55402 

(612)332-5300 

tzeuli@merchantgould.com

cdavis@merchantgould.com

sbrunner@merchantgould.com

Attorneys for Defendants Fairfield Inn & 

Suites Chicago Naperville, Fairfield Inn 

Chicago Tinley Park, Fairfield Inn Joliet 

North/Plainfield, Residence Inn Rockford, 

Towneplace Suites Chicago Naperville, and 

Fairfield Inn Peru

Jay L. Kanzler, Jr. 

Witzel & Kanzler LLC 

2001 S. Big Bend Blvd. 

St. Louis, MO 63117 

314 645 5367 

jaykanzler@wkllc.com

Attorney for Defendant La Quinta Inn Chicago 

O’Hare Airport 

Avidan Joel Stern 

Lynch & Stern LLP 

150 S. Wacker Drive 

Suite 2600 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 442-9481 

(312) 896-5883 (fax) 

avi@lynchandstern.com

Attorney for Defendant GFII Cardel Wood 

Dale, LLC d/b/a Courtyard Marriott Wood 

Dale 

/s/ Matthew G. McAndrews 

NIRO, HALLER & NIRO 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

INNOVATIO IP VENTURES, LLC 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 26 of 26 PageID #:54