I still don't understand what the scam would be in this case.
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.
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.
As I said, that's what I suspect. The actual scam may be different.
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.