I don't know enough about the details of wifi to say whether the patents in question actually apply, but it seems plausible. Here are all the patents listed in the suit:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=zi8SAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=0W-qAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=89fGAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=rlHHAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=HQwgAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=i9UYAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=Uz8JAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=f6mwAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=YxQcAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=unMYAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=yPcOAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=zDQSAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=Bkh4AAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=vfnOAAAAEBAJ