Amazing Settopbox Sues Geniatech USA and Shenzhen Geniatech in Indiana, Asserting a Wireless IPTV Set Top Box Patent.

The parties and the court

The case is Amazing Settopbox Holding LLC v. Geniatech USA LLC, No. 1:26-cv-02253 (S.D. Ind.), filed October 19, 2026, in the Indianapolis Division. The caption names two plaintiffs, Amazing Settopbox Holding LLC and Smart TV iQ Box Holding LLC, and two defendants, Geniatech USA LLC and Shenzhen Geniatech Inc., Ltd. The complaint says both plaintiffs are Delaware limited liability companies with a principal address in Dover, Delaware. It alleges, on information and belief, that Geniatech USA is organized under Indiana law with its principal place of business in Carmel, Indiana, and that Shenzhen Geniatech is organized under the laws of China with a place of business in Shenzhen, China. The docket lists Judge Jane Elizabeth Magnus-Stinson as the assigned judge and Magistrate Judge Crystal S. Wildeman as the referral judge. A reassignment order and a reassignment letter were entered on October 21, 2026 (ECF Nos. 8 and 9); neither document is public.

The complaint alleges that Amazing Settopbox is the assignee of the entire right, title, and interest in the patent, and that Smart TV iQ Box is the exclusive licensee and holds all rights of recovery, including the right to recover damages for past infringement and the right to grant sublicenses in all fields of use. Google Patents lists Amazing Settopbox Holding LLC as the current assignee and shows an assignment to it recorded at Reel 045194, Frame 0840.

The patent and the asserted claim

U.S. Patent 11,057,670, titled Wireless IPTV Set Top Box Having Multiple Modems and Antennas, issued July 6, 2021, from Application No. 14/599,345, filed January 16, 2015. The patent says it is a continuation of Application No. 14/330,266, filed July 14, 2014, which is a continuation of Application No. 13/374,721, filed January 10, 2012, now U.S. Patent 8,819,757, which claims the benefit of a provisional application filed January 11, 2011. Google Patents lists the patent as active, with an adjusted expiration of April 26, 2033. The complaint says the patent has 37 claims, of which claims 1, 12, 26, 30, and 34 are independent, and alleges that it is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. It describes the patent as directed to wireless set top boxes "capable of capturing plural downstream transmissions simultaneously on dedicated receivers using different modem technologies without the use of wires to the home," quoting the abstract.

The complaint asserts at least claim 26. Claim 26 recites a wireless set top box with at least one circuit board; a wireless module communicatively coupled to the at least one circuit board and configured to capture a wireless broadband connection signal and to process the received signal according to a wireless communication standard; and a processor in communication with the wireless module. The processor is configured to establish, using the wireless module, a wireless network link between the wireless set top box and "one of a wireless data network"; to receive, using the wireless module, a set of data transmitted through the wireless network link associated with the wireless broadband connection signal; to determine "internet protocol television (IPTV) signal associating wireless broadband connection signals," which includes determining multiply sourced data traffic based on the set of data corresponding to the wireless broadband connection signal; to establish connections with multiply sourced data traffic based on the determined wireless broadband connection signal; and to transmit output audio and video signals into an appropriate video display format to a device communicatively coupled to the wireless set top box.

In a section titled The Invention, the complaint says the inventor is the president of both plaintiffs. It says the invention can, for example, receive a show over a cellular network and broadcast it on Wi-Fi around a house for playback on a TV, phone, or tablet, and that this solved a long-felt need for consumers without high-speed, reliable, or affordable internet connections.

The accused boxes

The complaint accuses 15 Geniatech models: the APC329L, APC329L4, APC329Q, APC390K, APC3588, APC3568, APC680, APC810, APC820, APC830, APC880, APC1967, ATV329A, ATV329Q, and APC395X3, along with any variants, configurations, or successor models within the same product families, including models certified together under a single FCC identifier. It alleges, on information and belief, that these Accused Geniatech Boxes operate in a substantially similar manner with respect to the claimed functionality, and it charts the APC329L as representative. Each element-by-element allegation is made on information and belief and relies on screenshots from Geniatech's APC329L product page, an APC329L4 specification sheet, and an Amazon listing. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the other boxes contain the same wireless module, processor architecture, and firmware or software implementation, or a functionally identical variant, and says Geniatech's published specifications and marketing materials show that each uses the quad-core ARM Cortex-A55 processor found in the APC329L, a variant such as an ARM Cortex-A35, A53, or A73 processor, or a Qualcomm MSM8909 processor that it alleges operates in the same manner.

The complaint says plaintiffs' counsel obtained an APC329L from Geniatech USA that, on information and belief, Geniatech USA imported and shipped from Indiana. It says counsel also obtained an ATV329 in a 2G configuration that, on information and belief, Geniatech USA imported and shipped from Indiana, and that when counsel asked to exchange it for a 4G version, Geniatech USA directed that the return be sent to it in Indiana. It says counsel obtained an APC392L and an APC390K that were shipped from Shenzhen Geniatech in Shenzhen, China. The shipping records are Exhibits 3 through 7, which are not on the public docket.

Jurisdiction over the Shenzhen company

The complaint pleads personal jurisdiction over Geniatech USA because it is incorporated and resides in Indiana with its principal place of business in the district. For Shenzhen Geniatech, it offers two independent grounds. First, it alleges, on information and belief, that Geniatech USA is the agent and alter ego of Shenzhen Geniatech, so that Geniatech USA's contacts with the district are imputed to Shenzhen Geniatech. Second, it alleges that Shenzhen Geniatech committed acts of infringement in Indiana, placed its products in a stream of commerce directed to Indiana residents, and established minimum contacts through its electronic commerce advertisements, offers for sale, and sales. Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1391(a) and 1400(b) on the ground that both defendants committed acts in the district giving rise to the action and do business there. Subject matter jurisdiction is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).

The agent and alter ego allegation rests on facts the complaint pleads on information and belief: that Shenzhen Geniatech's founder and CEO is the only member of Geniatech USA; that Geniatech USA imports, sells, and distributes Geniatech-branded devices on behalf of Shenzhen Geniatech in the United States; that Shenzhen Geniatech's website held out Geniatech USA as a sales branch office in the United States until at least March 2026; that Geniatech USA's online store lists a foreign telephone number that is the same number as Shenzhen Geniatech's headquarters; and that Shenzhen Geniatech designated Geniatech USA to accept service of process in the United States for FCC-authorized equipment, including H.265 HEVC enabled devices that make up many of the accused boxes. The complaint quotes Geniatech USA's website, as of October 9, 2026, as stating that its parent company is Shenzhen Geniatech. It says the U.S. Agent Designations, attached as Exhibit 1, give the same address for the U.S. agent as for Geniatech USA and list an email address for the U.S. agent that, on information and belief, belonged to the person who signed the designations for Geniatech USA. Exhibit 1 is not on the public docket.

Infringement theories and relief

The single count alleges that the defendants have directly and/or indirectly infringed, and continue to infringe, at least claim 26, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, importing, offering to sell, or selling the accused boxes, and cites 35 U.S.C. 271(a) for direct infringement. For inducement under section 271(b), it points to Geniatech's product page, the APC329L datasheet, and the Amazon listing as materials instructing users, and alleges that Geniatech acts with the specific intent to encourage infringement by retailers, consumers, and end users. For contributory infringement under section 271(c), it alleges that the boxes are especially made or adapted for infringing use and have no substantial non-infringing uses, quoting Geniatech's description of a built-in 4G LTE module. Paragraph 57 alleges that the infringement is, has been, and continues to be willful, intentional, deliberate, and/or in conscious disregard of the plaintiffs' rights. The complaint alleges Geniatech's knowledge in general terms (paras. 52 to 54) and does not identify a notice letter or a date on which Geniatech learned of the '670 patent.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction for irreparable harm. The prayer asks the court to adjudge the patent valid, enforceable, and infringed; to enjoin Geniatech and those acting in concert with it, including related individuals and entities, customers, representatives, original equipment manufacturers, dealers, and distributors; to award compensatory damages; to award up to three times compensatory damages for willful infringement and enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. 284; to find the case exceptional and award costs and attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. 285; and to award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The plaintiffs demand a jury under Rule 38(b).

The complaint is signed by Kyle A. Lansberry of Lewis Wagner, LLP in Indianapolis, with Rudolph A. Telscher, Jr., Daisy Manning, L. Scott Oliver, and Jonah B. Heemstra of Husch Blackwell LLP listed with pro hac vice applications forthcoming. Notices of appearance for Kyle Andrew Lansberry and Benjamin Adam Katchur were filed on October 19, 2026, along with the plaintiffs' Rule 7.1 disclosure statement and the report on the filing of a patent action. The disclosure statement is not on the public docket.

What to watch next

Watch for service on Geniatech USA and on Shenzhen Geniatech, for the Husch Blackwell attorneys' pro hac vice motions, and for each defendant's answer or Rule 12 motion, including any motion by Shenzhen Geniatech directed to personal jurisdiction or service. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.