They did leave something extremely important out here that helps to explain the good faith argument. From the source: > Petitions challenging under-resourced p

They did leave something extremely important out here that helps to explain the good faith argument. From the source: > Petitions challenging under-resourced patent owner patents where the patentee has or is attempting to bring products to market; So I’d say the good faith argument is that it’s designed to protect larger orgs from bullying actual inventors/startups by attempting to threaten the legitimacy of their patents. The bit about bringing products to market is supposed to exclude trolls. More from the source: > Such limited resources may impact the perceived fairness of post-grant reviews. For example, some stakeholders in response to the RFC expressed concern that under-resourced inventors are unable to afford the costs involved in defending patents in post-grant review. Some stakeholders advocating for small businesses and individual inventors urged the Office to take into account the financial resources of a patent owner, and to limit reviews of patents owned by under-resourced entities who lack funding to defend challenges to their patents but who have sought to bring their inventions to market either themselves or through a licensee. So yeah basically the argument is that defending themselves in this proceeds is too onerous for small entities. So I think that’s the good faith argument. I’m skeptical, though I will happily admit that I don’t know much about the uses and abuses of the patent system.