Sorry for a late reply - playing catch up again.
So you think TPL should create multiple Alliacense-type organizations, one each for each patent portfolio they represent. Okay. Not very efficient. But okay.
However, in their defense, I'd suggest two things:
1) The notice to the Ts for the MMP (and only the MMP) was delivered well in advance of the notice re: non-MMP patent infringement. Check the time line. How long were they in discussions with the Ts (2+ years?)? And when did TPL/Alliacense begin representing the other patent portfolio (a year ago?)?
2) Having said/suggested that, I believe it would have been more prudent (and expected) for the Ts to voluntarily "fight" separate fights with consideration of patent "family" (MMP being a family) and patent ownership.
In other words, I suspect that TPL/Alliacense had the logical expectation that the two portfolios would have been dealt with separately by the Ts - and not with an "apples mixed with oranges" approach (complicating everything for all concerned - including the court).
FWIW,
SGE