Copied from Nevo The Applicants further argued that an analysis of our case in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Aguda Rule leads to the conclusion that taking into account the scope and nature of the Respondent's activity in Israel, it amounts to "activity in Israel" and therefore it must be determined that the applicable law is Israeli law. In this context, it was argued that the LinkedIn network is aimed at the Israeli consumer, and is used by millions of Israeli consumers who advertise in Hebrew on a daily basis. The applicants claimed that LinkedIn has acquired such an important status in Israel that the state itself uses it for the purpose of recruiting civil servants, and Israeli employers carry out advertising campaigns specifically addressed to an Israeli audience. In this context, the Applicants argued that contrary to the Respondent's claim, which was not supported by the affidavit, even before the application for approval was filed, Israeli users could have used the LinkedIn network in Hebrew and paid in New Shekels. Moreover, even before the application for approval was submitted, LinkedIn had a branch in Israel, where dozens of Israeli employees worked.
In view of the aforesaid, the applicants argued that according to the rules of choice of law, the applicable law is Israeli law, that the choice of law clause (even if it stipulates that American law will apply) is null and void, and that Israel is the proper forum to discuss the proceeding.
- The Respondent responded to the Applicants' response, and even petitioned for the deletion of parts of it, since, according to the Respondent, large parts of the Reply and a substantial part of its appendices were not mentioned in the Request for Approval, and they constitute a clear expansion of the front. The Respondent argued that in the framework of their response to the heresy request, the Applicants wrote, in practice, a completely new application for approval and a request for invention, in contravention of the law and without obtaining the court's approval. The Respondent insisted that the request for heresy should be decided solely on the basis of the evidence and arguments included in the motion for certification and in the motion for invention in the first place. The Respondent argued that all the arguments and evidence that were attached to prove the Applicants' claim that LinkedIn operates in Israel (including the argument and evidence relating to the use made by Israeli users, state authorities, and Israeli employers of the LinkedIn network to carry out searches, recruitments, and targeted advertising campaigns; and the evidence to prove the Applicants' claim that even prior to the filing of the application for approval, it was possible to make use of the LinkedIn network in Hebrew) are completely new factual elements that are not mentioned in the application for approval or in the application for invention, and therefore should not be addressed.
The Respondent further argued that the burden of proving the existence of the conditions for acquiring authority by virtue of an invention outside the scope of the Applicant falls on the Applicants, and they did not comply with it. The Respondent reiterated its argument that the choice of law clause in our case does not attest to an intention to waive the application of California law and that the Applicants' interpretation of section 6 of the Terms of Use, which contradicts the clear language and intention of the section, should be rejected.