I agree with your points in concept, but I feel it falls down on implementation.
Relying on a judge to apply rules based on their whim seems prone to failure. Judges are people with all the baggage they bring. There's a reason patent owners like East Texas.
Good Faith is also a nebulous measure. On the face of it Match has a reasonable good-faith argument to complain about Muzmatch in the same space. They may win, they may lose, but either way both sides are spending million(s) on this. By your logic Muzmatch would stand to lose a few million if they lose the case. That may be existential for them, and vacation budget for Match. And we're back to asymetary.
Relying on a judge to apply rules based on their whim seems prone to failure. Judges are people with all the baggage they bring. There's a reason patent owners like East Texas.
Good Faith is also a nebulous measure. On the face of it Match has a reasonable good-faith argument to complain about Muzmatch in the same space. They may win, they may lose, but either way both sides are spending million(s) on this. By your logic Muzmatch would stand to lose a few million if they lose the case. That may be existential for them, and vacation budget for Match. And we're back to asymetary.