The Claim and its Procedural History

12. The litigation process knew complexities. By the wayIts conduct Both parties filed patent applications in various forums; The plaintiffs asked to amend their statement of claim several times, and an expert was also appointed by the court, who submitted a number of opinions.  All of these and more will be told below.

Filing the original claim, the patent applications filed by the parties and the amendments to the statement of claim

13. The original statement of claim was filed in June 2020, close to the date of termination of the engagement. The plaintiffs They petitioned for declaratory relief that they were the owners of the relevant trade secrets, and for a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from using them.

The plaintiffs also petitioned for a permit to split the remedies, which would later enable them to sue for compensation for their many damages, which are estimated at millions of euros.

14. At the same time, the parties advanced the protection of their developments through patent applications that they filed:
    1. The first provisional patent application was filed in the United States by the defendants on March 29, 2020 (US'338, hereinafter: the American application), and is one of four preliminary documents of patent applications filed in the United States, prior to the filing of the defendants' patent application in Israel on March 29, 2021 (WO'036, hereinafter: the Israeli application).

The Israeli application was submitted by Prof.  Seroussi as the inventor, with Negev being named as the patent applicant.

1. The plaintiffs filed two patent applications on April 5, 2020 in a number of countries - one for a rapid COVID-19 test using a respirator, and the other for testing by a swab (ibid., in Appendix J).

A patent application was also filed by the plaintiffs in Israel in May 2020, which was rejected, and therefore a more detailed amended application was filed in August 2020.

15. Alongside the statement of claim, the plaintiffs filed a request for temporary relief, which was rejected by me. I insisted thatN In their application, they did not properly detail the secrets that were alleged to have been stolen, and they described the matter only in general.

An amended statement of claim was filed on August 17, 2020, detailing the four trade secrets that underlie it (ibid., in paragraph 25): discovery of a resonance frequency in the terahertz range unique to the coronavirus; integration of a unique microelectronic chip into a breathalyzer; modification of the nanostructure of the microelectronic chip inside a respirator for the purpose of identifying the virus in a biological sample produced by a breath or swab; and the development of a unique analytical method for the detection of viruses.

16.     ON June 20, 2022, THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM WAS AMENDED AGAIN, SO THAT RAM HOLDINGS WAS REPLACED BY ANOTHER COMPANY FROM THE CLUSTER OF COMPANIES MANAGED BY MR. RAM - RAM GROUP GLOBAL LTD.  (Hereinafter: Ram Global).  This is a foreign company registered in Singapore, which in the relevant period of the lawsuit dealt directly or indirectly in related fields.  On June 25, 2019, Ram Global's rights were transferred to Ram Global.

EVEN EARLIER, ON MAY 12, 2022, RAM GLOBAL SIGNED AN AGREEMENT TO ASSIGN ITS RIGHTS IN THE AGREEMENT AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE AGREEMENT WITH PLAINTIFF 3 - EPITRONIC HOLDINGS, PTE.  LTD.  (hereinafter: Epitronic).  AND ON NOVEMBER 29, 2022, A FURTHER ASSIGNMENT OF EPITRONIC'S RIGHTS WAS MADE TO PLAINTIFF NO.  4, RW SOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS LLC (HEREINAFTER: RW COMPANIES).

17.     In my decision of April 11, 2021, I gave permission to the plaintiffs to split their claiMs. Hence, the lawsuit in question concerns the declaratory relief regarding the plaintiffs' ownership of the trade secrets, and a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from making use of them.  In the future, the plaintiffs will be able to file a monetary claim for compensation, to the extent that their claims are found to be substantial.

18.     On February 1, 2023, a further amendment to the statement of claim was approved, for the purpose of adding the facts and appendices related to the assignment of rights made by Epitronic to plaintiff No.  4, RW.

The appointment of the court's expert and the opinion he submitted

19. Both parties submitted an expert opinion on their behalf. The plaintiffs were assisted by Dr.  Wladyslaw Pfeffer, a doctor of chemistry and patent attorney (hereinafter:   Pfeffer).  The defendants were assisted by Dr.  Kfir Luzzatto, a doctor of chemical engineering and patent attorney (hereinafter: Dr.  Luzzatto).  The reviews were polar.  Against this background, I ordered the appointment of an expert on behalf of the court.

The parties were asked to suggest possible experts, without specifying which of them proposed them.  At the end of the day, I appointed as the court's expert, Dr.  Eyal Bressler (hereinafter: the expert or Dr.  Bressler), who is an attorney and patent attorney, holds a bachelor's degree in biochemistry, a master's degree in applied chemistry and a doctorate in biotechnology.  This issomeone who has extensive experience in the field of intellectual property.  In retrospect, it turned out that he was one of the names suggested by the defendants.  The expert was asked to address the disputes arising from the pleadings and the opinion.  The plaintiffs also agreed that in this framework, the expert would be exposed to sensitive data of the defendants, ex parte.  The purpose of this was to enable the defendants to establish the independent development of their invention, to the extent they saw fit.

20. The expert submitted four opinions, in accordance with the various materials to which he was exposed in the course of his work, and due to various objections by the defendants: one dated August 17, 2021 (hereinafter: the first opinion), the second on October 26, 2021 (hereinafter: the second opinion), the third on November 21, 2022 (hereinafter: the third opinion) and the fourth on December 25, 2022 (hereinafter: the fourth opinion or the last opinion).
21. In the first opinion , the expert noted that he was asked to examine whether the information transferred to the defendants until the termination of the engagement with them amounted to a trade secret, or one protected by patent law. The expert replied in the affirmative regarding some of the details of the information, and with respect to others, it was determined that it would be difficult to formulate an unequivocal position (see: paragraph 10.1.2 of his opinion):
    1. Regarding the first trade secret - the resonance frequency of the SARS-COV-2 virus and the virus's fingerprint in the terahertz spectrum (hereinafter: the first secret) - it was determined that the material transferred to the defendants included a trade secret.
    2. With regard to the second trade secret - the respirator and the chip incorporated in it (hereinafter: the second secret) - it was determined that the material transferred to the defendants included a trade secret.

• Regarding the third trade secret - the structure of the sensor or the microelectronic chip (hereinafter: the third secret) - it was noted that it was difficult to determine whether it was indeed a trade secret, and it was recommended to wait for the decision of the Patent Office in the objection. In his opinion, the expert suggested that Prof.  Seroussi and anyone associated with the technology he developed confirm that "his/her nanoantenna array does not have the structure of a pair of square resonators above which is a metal strip and a single top and top with a D-pitch interval between 1 and 7 μm 10% [-+].  If such a statement is approved, the dispute between the parties regarding this family of trade secrets may be resolved" (p.  3 of the opinion).

1. With regard to the fourth trade secret - the method of analysis for the detection of viruses, and in particular the identification of SARS-COV-2, as well as the algorithm (hereinafter: the fourth secret) - it was determined that the material transferred to the defendants included a trade secret.

The expert further noted in his opinion (in paragraph 9.3) that as of January 31, 2021 (the date of publication of the plaintiffs' patent on the breather), most of the trade secrets have expired, and the technology is actually or potentially protected in accordance with the protection of patent law.

22. Following additional material submitted by the defendants to the expert, the expert submitted his second opinion, in which he determined that there was a real concern that the defendants had exploited some of the plaintiffs' trade secrets, in light of the examination of the patent application filed by Prof. Seroussi on behalf of the Negev Company.  In this framework, the expert examined the foundations of the patent application and found in relation to various components great relevance to the plaintiffs' trade secrets, and in relation to other components, no relevance was found.
23. In the third opinion, the expert continued his work to examine whether the defendants had in fact used the plaintiffs' trade secrets. The expert determined that Prof.  Seroussi used their second and third trade secrets .

On the first page of this opinion, he noted that "my opinion is that defendant 2 accessed, with the plaintiffs' permission, the plaintiffs' knowledge rooms, whether by participating in meetings and holding conversations, or by logging into the system in which the computer records the technological knowledge and its medical application.  In the process, and until May 19, 2020, it took, published, and used the technology of Yanshof, the chip integrated with it, and the architecture and design of the THz sensor for the rapid detection of the coronavirus, a technology that bears a substantial resemblance to information that constitutes a trade secret of the plaintiffs, from family B and family C, as stated [in my preliminary opinion].  The publication and use of the commercial information by defendant 2 was made without the consent of the plaintiffs and in contravention of the confidentiality agreement and/or the duty of trust, to the extent applicable, imposed on defendant 2 towards the plaintiffs" [emphases in original].