Not only that; Prof. Seroussi even noted in his affidavit (in paragraph 16) that as a result of his research proposal, he received a grant from the university in the amount of ILS 40,000 for the development of the project. But here too no details were given when the funds were received. Hence, Prof. Seroussi's work on the project was supposed to begin after March 10, 2020, the date of the dissemination of the call for proposals. However, his work was not established before the disclosure of the plaintiffs' secrets.
- Prof. Seroussi replied in his interrogation that his venture was launched "More or less" on March 11, 2020, and explained that he did not mention this in his affidavits that he was obligated to Terra Group in an undertaking to maintain confidentiality (see: 384, paras. 12-18). This explanation is not convincing. It does not appear that there would have been a real breach of confidentiality following the disclosure of the date on which work on the project began.
This lack of evidence works in favor of the plaintiffs. He strengthens the conclusion that Prof. Seroussi began work on his venture after he was exposed to the contents of the plaintiffs' venture. This is another circumstantial evidence, which strengthens the presumption of use.
Claims of widening the façade or exceeding the authority of the expert on behalf of the court should not be accepted by making use of circumstantial evidence as well
- The defendants have devoted considerable effort to argue that the expert's analysis with respect to the third secret amounts to an expansion of an improper front, andQThis impaired their ability to defend themselves against what was attributed to them.
As may be recalled, the defendants refer to the definition of the third trade secret, as stated in the amended statement of claim. This included a detail of the structure of the plaintiffs' chip, and hence the defendants referred to this chip, and the difference between it and their chip, which has an X configuration. The expert's position that the defendants were exposed to previous development attempts by the plaintiffs, which also included the X configuration, therefore ascends to the expansion of a late and invalid façade.