The case is IoT Innovations LLC v. Chamberlain Group LLC, No. 1:26-cv-10653 (N.D. Ill.), filed September 2, 2026 in the Eastern Division and assigned to Judge Jorge L. Alonso, with Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim designated. IoT Innovations says it is a Texas limited liability company. The complaint says, based on public information, that Chamberlain is an Illinois limited liability company based in Oak Brook, Illinois. IoT Innovations demands a jury.
Patents and accused products
The asserted patents are U.S. Patent 7,161,960 (issued January 9, 2007), U.S. Patent 7,209,876 (April 24, 2007), U.S. Patent 7,246,173 (July 17, 2007), U.S. Patent 7,280,830 (October 9, 2007), U.S. Patent 9,008,055 (April 14, 2015), and Reissue Patent RE44,742 (February 4, 2014), a reissue of U.S. Patent 7,751,533. The complaint relies on claim 16 of the '960 patent and claim 1 of each of the others, with evidence-of-use charts in Exhibits A to F.
The accused products include the myQ Enterprise Dock Management platform and its software and interfaces, the myQ Smart Garage Control and hub, the myQ mobile app, compatible door sensors and myQ-enabled garage door openers, the myQ Smart Garage Video Keypad, the Chamberlain Amber AI assistant, several Chamberlain Wi-Fi garage door openers, the LiftMaster Smart Garage Control and Smart Garage Camera, and a list of LiftMaster garage door opener models.
What the patents cover
Claim 16 of the '960 patent, titled Apparatus, and Associated Method, for Forming, and Operating Upon, Multiple-Checksum-Protected Data Packet, covers a method in a packet communication system of protecting two selected portions of a data packet with separate checksums: selecting the parts of the data to be protected, calculating a checksum on each, and formatting the packet to include fields that identify each protected portion along with indicia of its checksum.
Claim 1 of the '876 patent, titled System and Method for Automated Answering of Natural Language Questions and Queries, covers producing answers to a question that contains a variable expression standing for the desired answer data: searching a natural language repository for information with the query terms, searching that result set for phrases in a form syntactically similar to the query that contain data able to replace the variable expression, and turning those phrases into direct answers. Claim 1 of the '173 patent, titled Method and Apparatus for Classifying IP Data, covers receiving IP data at a first node with a header listing at least one intermediate node to be visited on the way to the destination and classifying the data at that node based on an entry in the header.
Claim 1 of the '830 patent covers automatically registering a new wireless device by establishing a home relationship with a network server, which determines that the device is an owned device it already knows, so the user need not configure the device further to use the network, and then automatically obtaining registration information and sending it from the network server to a registration server. Claim 1 of the '055 patent covers automatic remote services for a mobile device that already has a relationship with a home network server, set up with user preferences naming a service to run on connection: when the device connects to the Internet through a separate, remote local network, the server receives information stored on the device when the relationship was set up and, if it recognizes the device, automatically starts a data transfer between the device and the server. Claim 1 of RE44,742, titled Dynamic Message Templates and Messaging Macros, covers running an application on a device with associated message context data, selecting a context data item, and automatically inserting it into a dynamic field of a message template.
What the lawsuit is about
IoT Innovations alleges direct infringement of each patent and, for the '055 and '742 patents, induced and contributory infringement since Chamberlain learned of the suit, including allegations made on information and belief. It says it or its predecessors satisfied the requirements to collect pre-filing damages. It asks for damages of no less than a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. 284 on all six patents, and a permanent injunction, or an ongoing royalty in the alternative, and enhanced damages for willful infringement only as to the '055 and '742 patents.
What to watch next
A motion for an extension of time to answer was filed September 30, 2026, and the court ruled on it October 1 (ECF No. 13). Watch for Chamberlain's answer or Rule 12 motion. IoT Innovations has also asserted several of the same patents in two East Texas suits, Nos. 2:26-cv-00826 and 2:26-cv-00924.