At a minimum they’re doing a form of “liability insurance” by foisting 100% of the liability for 5% of the profits on a food truck owner.
That changes things beyond just liability - it also makes it appear judgement proof. And the dollar amounts indicate that companies may just settle because there’s nothing to win by a counter suit.
There almost certainly is, which is part of the reason the judge is poking this - "ownership" includes control and if they aren't really in control they're not really the patent 'owner' and that could change things.
Also judges in general don't like people being "clever".
“Dude you made 11k from this and now you’re in court. Judge is pissed, you might be in over your head. Sell me the patents for 10k, and we all can move on.”
That changes things beyond just liability - it also makes it appear judgement proof. And the dollar amounts indicate that companies may just settle because there’s nothing to win by a counter suit.