The expert further added in his interrogation (648, Q. 18-7):
Q: And let's say, let's say that in two weeks, in two weeks, is it reasonable to develop such a system?
A: Absolutely not. If you give me 20 people, man power 20, 20 manpower and give me all the ability and give me the energy and the money, the efforts and direct them, then a month or two seems fine to me, the one after that, I already see that it is called, then a technological unit of the army says that they managed to develop an inhaler within a few days, or I don't know, let's say a week. Very nicely, there is the architecture of the "Eyal Group" in the inhaler of the "Eyal Group" works in proportions not of a park, I didn't get to the point that it's not a park at all, but this time we'll get to the point that it's in the proportions of a park and they manage to make an inhaler a little lower and the fact that the experiment didn't succeed, they failed in the experiment. While I saw, I saw in the video, I don't know how reliable it is, I saw a clinical trial that was successful at "Mr. Ram Group" and I saw a device... [emphasis added].
- Of course, the defendants had the option of showing that independent research and development was at the basis of their venture, or to convincingly explain how they developed it independently. This was not done.
The expert on behalf of the court ruled in his fourth opinion (in paragraph 1.1.6), and also in paragraph 1.1.6. to the third opinion) that it was not proven before him that a research body, not even a research body, had reached the achievements detailed by Prof. Seroussi in the patent application he filed on March 29, 2020. Hence, the presumption of use established in section 10 of the Law was not contradicted.
- The expert further detailed in his interrogation that he did not receive from the defendants 30 important documents that he requested, but only two documents: P/1, a manuscript drawing dated March 28, 2020, which already existed 10 years earlier, and one more document (apparently the expert's intention is for the document P/4 - Illustration of the breather from April 2, 2020; See: 495, s. 2-19; 495, S. 29-25).
The expert even noted in his last opinion (in Appendix B to the opinion, paragraph 2, page 35) that he did not receive documents from Prof. Seroussi attesting to research and development, even though he had requested it. He found reference to the documents he received, and explained why they do not establish independent research and development of the sensor. He reiterated this position in his testimony (514, S. 7-4).
- The defendants drew attention to the exhibit P/2. This is an e-mail from the defendants' counsel to the expert, dated January 6, 2022, with a link to the second set of documents requested from them, which include various illustrations of the chips.
However, this does not change the evidentiary picture.