The theft of the third trade secret was thus established.  There will be no protection in the Merck case, in patent law or by virtue of commercial tort law.  The totality of the circumstances also establishes a rivalry with the Negev Company, defendant 1, in a manner that justifies the granting of remedies against it.  At the same time, there is no reason to grant the requested remedies, in the circumstances of the case, in relation to Ben-Gurion University.

56.     Before proceeding to establish these conclusions, I have found it necessary to comment on the defendants' claims against the court's expert.  Indeed, it is legitimate for a party to the proceeding, who is not satisfied with the expert's position, to criticize his position and the way it is analyzed.  Here, however, the defendants made a blunt criticism that crossed accepted and proper lines.  It was noted that the expert showed a basic lack of understanding of the task assigned to him; Because he acted with impartiality and lack of objectivity, because he showed a lack of professionalism and so on and so forth.  There was no place for these harsh statements.  See also examples of comments that deviate from the appropriate amount during the conduct of the expert's interrogations (see, for example: 467, paras.  12-25; 574, paras.  6-7; 584, paras.  4-14; 600, s.  32; 606, s.  16-15).

It is precisely in light of this that we should thank Dr.  Bressler for his hard work, and for his willingness to assist the court.  That's what I do.  I did not find his opinion invalid, and instead I referred to the defendants' arguments on their merits.  As for their unnecessary severity, this will be taken into account at the stage of ruling on costs.

Establishing the theft of the third secret - the microelectronic sensor/chip structure

57.     Dr.  Bressler, the court's expert, determined, as may be recalled, that the defendants stole and made use of the third trade secret concerning the sensor's structure.  After examining the evidence before me, I found that his conclusions are firmly anchored in it.  that the plaintiffs' development did indeed amount to a trade secret and was not in the public domain; that getting to it required significant research and development; that the defendants had access to this secret; that they have a substantial resemblance to that of the plaintiffs; and it is done shortly after the date of exposure; that the defendants were unable to point to a real investment in their development, which was made in a very short time, without sufficient explanations that would enable them to establish an independent opening.

All of these show that the presumption of use has not been concealed.  Prof.  Seroussi's arguments in this regard did not succeed in contradicting the objective evidence submitted in the case.  It stands to the right of the plaintiffs.