It was further determined that if Prof. Seroussi had not been exposed to the plaintiffs' secrets, as part of his access to their computer system and in the course of his meetings and conversations with them, he would not have reached a situation at the end of March 2020 in which he would have been able to file the American patent application, which was filed on March 29, 2020 (US'338); nor would he have published what he published on and after May 13, 2020. The expert determined that the infringing patent application includes components that are substantially similar to the plaintiffs' second and third trade secrets. In his estimation, the Negev Society and the University had only a small and passive part in the use of these secrets.
- During the evidentiary hearing on December 18, 2022, in which the expert was interrogated, it emerged that he may not have referred in his opinion to certain documents sent to him by the defendants. As a result, the expert was asked to refer to these documents and clarify whether they change his opinion.
As a result, the expert submitted his fourth opinion. This opinion is very similar to the third opinion, it includes the same conclusions, except for a few passages mentioned. The expert also added an appendix containing a summary of the materials that were transferred to him. The expert explained that he believed in his interrogation that a certain document had indeed not been examined by him. It touched on the antenna structure of the sensor in the shape of an "X" (hereinafter: the X antenna) developed by the defendants. However, it turned out that this document had indeed been given for review earlier, not in a different version. Therefore, he mistakenly thought that he had not examined him beforehand. Afterwards, an additional evidentiary hearing was scheduled to clarify this issue.
The Hearings in the Case
- Six evidentiary hearings were held in the case, and the following witnesses were examined: on behalf of the plaintiffs - Mr. Ram and Dr. Pfeffer, the expert on their behalf. On behalf of the defendants - Prof. Seroussi and Dr. Luzzatto, the expert on their behalf. After the witnesses of the parties were questioned, Dr. Bressler, the court's expert, was questioned about the opinion he had submitted.
- It should also be noted that the defendants filed a motion to invalidate the expert opinion on behalf of the court, and to appoint a brother in his place. They claimed that the expert exceeded his authority, showed bias in favor of the plaintiffs, and that there were various failures in his work, including unreliability and professional unreliability, which are exceptional in their severity. In my decision of July 16, 2023, I rejected the request. I determined that their remedy is to attack the opinion in the framework of the summaries, as is customary. I also rejected several motions filed by the defendants to dismiss the claim in limine, taking into account the assignment of rights made by the plaintiffs. It was determined that the parties would be able to address this matter as well in their summaries.
- The summaries were submitted and the time came for a decision.
The main arguments of the parties
- The arguments of the parties are many and branched. I will discuss here the main points. I will address additional issues at the discussion and decision stage. In the rest of the world, I did not find any justification for deviating from the conclusions I had reached.
The plaintiffs' main arguments
- According to the plaintiffs, it has been proven that they are the owners of the four trade secrets in dispute. This was determined by the court's expert, who adopted some of the positions of the expert on their behalf, Dr. They established that their developments amounted to trade secrets in accordance with the law, and that they took reasonable measures to protect them. The demand for a business advantage over competitors is also met in the current case, given the COVID-19 pandemic that raged at the time, and their ability to achieve rare practical results as a result of the research and openness they invested.
As for the defendants, they were exposed to the plaintiffs' trade secrets. The agreement between the parties gave Prof. Seroussi access to their "Holy of Holies". It was further proven that Prof. Seroussi viewed the relevant documents to be opened, andreferred to the concrete files that were viewed as aforesaid.