The various illustrations are from the dates (according to the names of the image files) - 28 March 2020, 10 April 2020, 30 April 2020, with the only handwritten illustration being from 28 March 2020, and all the rest are printed illustrations. The expert on behalf of the court testified that he was told thatthe first was drawn by Prof. Seroussi when he formulated the idea underlying the development in one fell swoop (see the expert's testimony: 437, S. 11-13; 547, S. 22-14).
It follows from this that "initial sketches of our chip [emphasis added]", in the words of the defendants, they did not have them before March 28, 2020, when the very next day, on March 29, 2020, they filed their first patent application. This confirms the expert's position that they did not have R&D at their disposal prior to that defining moment. Your version that they created their invention out of thin air, and the next day on March 29, 2020, they filed their patent application, cannot stand.
- Further reinforcement of the court's expert position is learned from the fact that the defendants also did not present a significant budget that was invested by them in the research and development of their invention.
The expert testified in his interrogation that while he received data from the plaintiffs regarding their investment expenses in the venture, finances and manpower, he did not receive parallel data from the defendants (644, Q. 12-1).
The plaintiffs presented in Exhibit A/4 their investment expenses in the research and development of their venture, which amount to €16.8 million. According to the defendants, the expert adopted the plaintiffs' argument, without presenting references to this table. On the other hand, however, they did not claim significant investment amounts in their venture. The only sum mentioned by Prof. Seroussi in his affidavit was only ILS 40,000 that he received from the university for the purpose of developing his venture (see: paragraph 16 of the affidavit). And even in this regard, the defendants did not provide references (see: 495, paras. 3-8).
- All of these strengthen the conclusion that the defendants did not prove their own independent opening, and the presumption of use was not contradicted in this sense. The fact that the defendants refrained from presenting data about their investment establishes the evidentiary presumption that they do not exist.
The short time frame in which the defendants were able to develop, according to them, is unreasonable
- Further support for the expert's conclusion lies in the fact that while the plaintiffs worked on their open for a period of time that is not negligible, the defendants claim that they formulated what was required from their point of view in very rapid timetables, which are not reasonable in view of the nature of the development at hand.
- The defendants refer to a letter from the President of Ben-Gurion University dated March 30, 2020 (Appendix 19 to Prof. Seroussi's affidavit), addressed to the Sheba Medical Center, which refers to Prof. Seroussi's opening. The purpose of the application was to support the submission of the study to the Helsinki Committee, so that human experiments could be conducted.
This letter was sent only about two weeks after Prof. Seroussi began providing services to the plaintiffs in relation to the relevant opening. It noted that he succeeded in developing the chip on which the virus sample would be applied in "a short time of about a week", and also completed all the simulations and planning and production for this chip.