The Plaintiff petitions for a variety of remedies, including injunctions, mandatory orders (such as removing the Software), orders for the rendering of accounts, and monetary relief. The Plaintiff asserts several legal causes of action, including breach of contract; inducing breach of contract (by Keren HaTamar); copyright infringement; breach of duties of good faith in negotiation and performance of a contract by Shva; misappropriation of trade secrets; and unjust enrichment.
7. In the statements of defense filed on behalf of the Defendants, it was initially argued that the limitation period had expired, or at the very least, that the claim suffered from laches (undue delay). The limitation argument relies primarily on the fact that a dispute arose between the Plaintiff and Shva regarding ownership of the Software as early as 2007. The laches argument relies primarily on claims raised by the Plaintiff during 2013. The Plaintiff did not turn to legal proceedings at that time and returned to address the Defendants, filing the lawsuit, in 2017.
On the merits, the Defendants argued that ownership of the Software belongs to Shva and that there is no basis for the Plaintiff's claims regarding its ownership. Alternatively, it was argued that even if ownership of the Software belongs to the Plaintiff, Shva was not restricted in transferring the machines in which the Software was embedded, both in light of the agreements between the parties and according to the law, given the doctrine of exhaustion of rights.
Keren HaTamar additionally claimed that this is an attempt by the Plaintiff to exaggerate the importance of the Software it developed for the activity of the ATM devices. It was argued that the Software is one component of many installed in the machine, and that even at the time of the purchase of the machines, the Software was already an old product with a limited life horizon.
8. The parties raised additional claims. Among other things, Mitug claimed that this is a disturbing affair regarding exploitative, predatory, and illegal conduct by capital-rich companies to execute a massive transaction while blatantly and knowingly violating the rights of a small software company. On the part of the Defendants, it was argued that this is a nuisance and baseless lawsuit tainted by heavy laches, the purpose of which is to extort money and earn "easy money" at their expense.