I understand how it's interesting to see how one NPE structures it's relationships. But aside from the mail drop / physical location shenanigans, I can't tell if there's any legal significance to this information.
Can you say more what this means? What were the risks these people were (I would guess unknowingly) accepting in return for their 5-10% if things went ‘well’?
Certainly, their LLCs could be subject to attorneys fees if the Court awards fees (which it generally only does in exceptional cases) or for sanctions based on attorney behavior.
However, normally, only their LLCs would be liable rather than the owners personally--unless they fail to observe the corporate formalities.
One even had no idea what the name of the patent "he" owned was, or what it was for.
Failing to observe which formalities in particular would expose them personally to such liability?
It spreads downside risk directly. It also makes unraveling the real interests harder.
It's a clever, evil hack of the justice system. It's very cool this judge uncovered it. I hope they get nailed and I hope we close these loopholes.
IANAL, but I wouldn't think "this seems sus" to be a sufficient justification for a court to compel discovery without a clear relevance to the issues before it.
So essentially the scam removes liability from the (dubious) patent owner - it removes the downside to (allegedly) abusing the law, and subverts the intent of the legislation.
As I said, that's what I suspect. The actual scam may be different.