The expert's determination that the sensor's structure amounts to a trade secret, and that Professor Seroussi was exposed to it was not contradicted

58. Section 5 The Commercial Torts Law defines a trade secret as:Business information of any kind, which is not in the public domain and cannot be legally disclosed easily by others, the confidentiality of which gives its owner a business advantage over its competitors, provided that the owner takes reasonable measures to maintain its confidentiality".
59. The defendants tried to refute the plaintiffs' claim that a trade secret was at stake. Them claimed that its developmentN Relying on previous publications that were in the public domain.  And as we know"Information is not considered a trade secret if it is in the public domain.  Trade secret law does not provide protection for information in the public domain or for information accessible to the public" (Reches, at p.  155).
60. The expert Pfeffer, on behalf of the plaintiffs, presented a different approach. In his opinion (of April 27, 2021, paragraph 24.5, and in particular paragraph 24.5.3, at pages 29-30) he noted the difference between the structure of the plaintiffs' sensor and the sensor presented in previous publications such as Kang (2018), Park (2017) and the like.

The main difference is that in previous publications, the use of the sensor required a lot of preparation work, which was reflected in the preparation of many layers of the virus on the surface of the sensor, after which these layers were required to be cleaned, steamed, and dried for at least one hour.  On the other hand, the plaintiffs' chip could have operated on the basis of a spontaneously dirty sample, which was taken in the field using a swab or a respirator (see: paragraph 24.5.3 of the opinion).

In fact, Dr.  Bressler accepted this position in his first opinion (in paragraph 14.1, at the end of page 8): "Park and Company (2017) also rely in their article on the previous work of Sheen and Company and Baa et al., who isolate viruses in the laboratory in a procedure that requires chemical preparations and a number of stages of action on the one hand, and an operation time of up to an hour...".  This analysis shows the previous burdensome technology.

61. The defendants further argued in their summaries (in paragraph 110) that the size of the 36*36 micron chip used, is dictated by the science of physics, since only this size allows the antenna to react in the heter rangeThe-Hertz. This matter was also dictated, it is claimed, by previous publications.  They added a reservation that they mean "As far as we are concerned with the field around 1 terahertz".  Later in the same paragraph, they argued that "All those involved in the field of terahertz must do so anyway", and hence "Everyone who works in this field uses the same measurements".

I cannot accept this argument, for a number of reasons:

1. a) The expert on behalf of the court contradicted these determinations in his second opinion. He noted with respect to the plaintiffs' chip structure (on page 29, in the third row of cells in the table, in the right column) that "The technology is suitable for the detection of the coronavirus in the terahertz frequency of 0.5-3.5".  In other words, it is not just "In the range around 1 terahertz" In the words of the defendants in their summaries.
2. b) In their summaries, the defendants claimed (at paragraph 115) that the dimensions of their chip were different from the dimensions of the plaintiffs' chip, and as evidence, they referred to the plaintiffs' admission in their summaries that the dimensions of Prof. Seroussi's chip were 90% identical to the dimensions of the plaintiffs' chip.  In other words, the defendants admit that the dimensions of the plaintiffs' chip are different from the dimensions of their chip, despite the fact that they are both dealing with a chip that detects the coronavirus in terahertz frequencies.  In other words, the conclusion that arises from this is that "Everyone who works in this field uses the same measurements", and the science of physics and previous publications do not force everyone involved in the field to develop a chip of the same size.
3. c) In addition, and as emerges from the plaintiffs' documents, theN Do experiments IIA variety of chip sizes in structure X, andin a variety of dimensions (38-90 microns * 45-90 microns), i.e., not necessarily 36 x 36 microns (see paragraph 1.2.3 of the expert's fourth opinion, on pages 10-11). This fact also refutes the defendants' claim that "Everyone who works in this field uses the same measurements."
4. d) The expert explained in his testimony that the terahertz field imposes certain dimensions of minimum and maximum, but the range between them is very wide, allowing for a variety of dimensions of the chip. The development of the exact dimensions on the part of the plaintiffs for their chip therefore required research and development (see p.  587, S.  32-25; 588, S.  16-6).
5. e) Finally, I would like to note that in paragraph 2.1 of Park's article (Appendix 7 to Prof. Seroussi's affidavit) it was noted that although the outer dimensions of the micro-antenna in the chip are 36 x 36 microns, the dimensions of the spacing (thegap) can vary: 200 nano micron, 500 nano micron, and 1-3 micron.
6. Thus, the expert's position that the plaintiffs' work in relation to 30The structure of the sensor was not derived from publications that were in the public domain, and its development was a matter of discretion. Hence it takes place in theJTohN The innovation component, which is not in the public domain, constitutes a trade secret.
7. In addition, it was established that the plaintiffs took reasonable measures to keep their secrets, in accordance with the requirement of section 5 of the law. Suffice it to mention the agreed fact that Prof.  Seroussi received a password and username from the plaintiffs in order to be able to access the servers of their computer system.  In this regard, it should be remembered that "The courts do not require the owner of the secret to take excessive measures in order to preserve his trade secret, and it is sufficient to take reasonable steps to maintain the confidentiality" (Reches, at p.  189).  In the circumstances of the case, unreasonable conduct on the part of the plaintiffs in protecting the information they opened was not substantiated.  It was not established that this information came from an unauthorized third party, and the granting of careful disclosure of the information to Professor Seroussi, as stated above, was also established.  And alongside the technological level, there is also the contractual level, which establishes confidentiality.  As may be recalled, in accordance with clause 7 of the basic agreement between the parties from 2016, a requirement of confidentiality was included (see above in paragraph 5).
8. The demand for a business advantage over the competition also exists here. It's been a long time since the COVID-19 pandemic hit us, and we've experienced shocking events in the meantime.  And still, Let's not forget that the COVID-19 pandemic was a traumatic and historic event.  It was a severe global pandemic that claimed many victiMs. Being able to reach a working device with the potential to detect virus carriers was no small matter.  As the court's expert noted in the opinion and in his testimony, even due to the consolidation of lawsuits with great means, the budget and experience were unable to reach such an instrument, and the plaintiffs met the challenge after investing considerable resources (see: paragraph 1.1.6 of his third opinion).

65.     Thus, the structure of the plaintiffs' sensor/chip amounts to a trade secret for all intents and purposes.  In addition, from the evidence before me, it appears that Prof.  Seroussi was exposed to the chip design document (which was attached in the last pages of Appendix L to Mr. Ram's affidavit), which contains diagrams of the antenna structure of the sensor and a verbal explanation of the main methodology for its use.  The plaintiffs attached to this appendix (at the end of page 9 of the appendix) the list of files that Prof.  Seroussi viewed, among which was noted the name of the file Chip designs.pptx to which he was exposed.

In fact, the defendants admitted in their summaries (paragraph 7) that they were exposed to the plaintiffs' chip structure document, but claimed that it was identical in shape and dimensions to that in Park's article (paragraph 14.1 of the first opinion), and that it was published in 2017.  As stated, the court's expert position that the defendants' chip differs from Park's chip in that it allows the virus to be detected in a "spontaneously dirty" sample in the field, without preliminary preparations (paragraph 14.1, on pages 8-9 of the first expert opinion; and in his testimony at p.  504, Q.  5-1).