First, there is already an internal contradiction in the records, since it is inconceivable that files created on April 28, 2021, were last changed on April 26, 2021, i.e., before they were created.  Second, and this is the main point, it is not possible to learn from these files the plaintiffs' claim that was stated in Mr. Ram's affidavit (at paragraph 80), that these were indeed "initial designs" dated March 24, 2020, and not those that were created at a later date.  The plaintiffs did not meet the burden of proof imposed on them to prove that the defendants saw any models of the Yansel that they created before March 29, 2020.  In other words, even if I assume that these models existed on March 24, 2020, it has not been proven by the plaintiffs that they showed these models to the defendants before March 29, 2020.

• It should also be noted that Prof. Seroussi explicitly stated in his affidavit (at paragraph 124.  ) that he does not remember seeing these photos and videos before receiving the affidavit of the main witness on behalf of the plaintiffs.  However, he was not questioned about this part of his affidavit.  Later on you will submit an affidavit (in paragraph 124.  d) Prof.  Seroussi stated that he was not aware of any design of a breather on behalf of the plaintiffs in real time, neither early nor advanced, and his affidavit on this matter was also not refuted in his interrogation.
• Appendix S. to Mr. Ram's affidavit (paragraph 87 of his affidavit) is dated April 4, 2020.
• Appendix B to Mr. Ram's affidavit (paragraph 88 of his affidavit) is dated sometime after April 4, 2020.
• Appendix A to Mr. Ram's affidavit (paragraph 102 of his affidavit) deals with the designs of the improved version, which were sent by email to Prof. Seroussi on April 19, 2020.

1. In fact, the plaintiffs' documents also show that according to their approach, the defendants' exposure to the second secret was at a later stage, after they had already filed the American patent application.

Thus, the plaintiffs presented a table of trade secrets containing the second secret - "breathe and integrate the chip into it" (P/3).  In relation to it, it was noted in the leftmost column entitled "Application Date": "Patent Registration Documents dated April 1, 2020 [Appendix H] + the plaintiffs' internal document dated April 4, 2020, in which they proposed, for the first time in the world, to integrate the microelectronic sensor into the breathalyzer tube.  This document was presented to the defendants at the beginning of April [Appendix I] [emphasis added]." In other words, the plaintiffs admit that it was only at the beginning of April (and not before April 4, 2020) that they first presented the defendants with the integration of the sensor into their respirators.

96.     The evidentiary picture so far does not substantiate Prof.  Seroussi's exposure to the plaintiffs' second trade secret, prior to the filing of the defendants' American patent.

The plaintiffs nevertheless claim the existence of evidence that shows otherwise.  According to them, the evidence that the defendants were exposed to their breather is the documents attached to the plaintiffs' exhibit A/3 (Appendices 3, 4 and 5 to this exhibit) that deal with the second secret, all of which date from March 8, 2020 - that is, prior to the parties' engagement in the relevant field, which began on March 14, 2020.