The expert on behalf of the court had his say. Still, this is not the end of the verse. At the beginning of the hearing, basic concepts should be mentioned, according to which the court will usually adopt the position of the expert on its behalf. Usually, but not always. The burden is on the party arguing against his opinion to establish that this is the exceptional case that justifies a deviation from the rule. This is well known, and this is how they were described in other municipal applications 293/88 Yitzhak Neiman Company for Rent in Tax Appeal v. Rabi (published in the databases; 1988; at paragraph 4):
Once the court appoints an expert in order to provide the court with professional data for the purpose of deciding the hearing, it is reasonable to assume that the court will adopt the expert's findings unless there appears to be a clear reason not to do so. Indeed, an expert witness is like any other witness - the consideration of his credibility is left to the court, and the fact that he is an expert does not limit the court's discretion. However, as stated, the court will not be inclined to deviate from the expert's opinion in the absence of weighty reasons that would motivate it to do so [emphases added].
- Bressler, the court's expert, located four trade secrets of the plaintiffs to which the defendants had access: the first is the resonance frequency of the SARS-COV-2 virus and the fingerprint of the virus in the terahertz spectrum; The second is the breather and the chip that is integrated into it; The third is the sensor structure; And the fourth is the analysis method and the algorithm. From a legal standpoint, therefore, the presumption of use arises in relation to these secrets, to the extent that it is found that they were used in the development of the defendants.
The expert determined in his fourth (and last) opinion that the defendants stole the second and third trade secrets from the plaintiffs (ibid., in paragraph 4). At the same time, it was determined that the theft of the fourth secret was not proven (ibid., paragraphs 2.2-2.3 of the experience). Thus, in his third opinion, the expert noted that although he places great trust in Mr. Ram, he still "takes the evidence out of his friend. The plaintiffs who argue before me and explain to me did not present evidence that has decisive weight to determine that the defendants actually used the analysis method or the algorithm... In any case, with regard to the method of analysis and the algorithm, my opinion is that despite the reasonableness of the plaintiffs' claim, I cannot unequivocally point to defendant 2 as the one who stole the plaintiffs' trade secret" (ibid., at p. 12 [emphasis in original]).