Therefore, the applicant is entitled to follow the king's path and lay out his arguments in the application for approval in accordance with Israeli law, and if a claim is raised in response to the request for approval, he will be able to respond to it in the framework of the response to the response (and to be precise: the intention is to answer why Israeli law applies, and not to the claim that there is a cause of action under foreign law)."
In my opinion, this is even more appropriate in our case, where the argument in principle regarding the applicability of Israeli law and the non-applicability of foreign law (both according to the applicants' interpretation of the relevant stipulation and in view of the argument that it is a discriminatory condition in a uniform contract that is null and void) was raised in the application for approval; and even more so where the precedent in which the concrete tests for examining the applicable law were established and the validity of the choice of law clause was formulated after the application for approval was filed. And to be precise. In our case, in the application for approval, it was clearly argued that the court in Israel has jurisdiction to hear the proceeding and that Israeli law applies, inter alia, taking into account the scope of LinkedIn's activity in Israel (see sections 49 onwards of the motion for approval) and was even argued concretely with respect to the scope and characteristics of this activity (see, for example, section 49 and paragraph 15 of the motion for approval). Most of the relevant alleged data were already brought in the motion for approval, and in any event, the data and evidence that were attached to the Applicants' response to the request for heresy do not change the cause of action and do not add a new legal or factual layer to the line of argument taken in the motion for certification (compare: the Lerner case, paragraph 14 of the judgment, the second test), but rather they are intended only to detail and substantiate the argument already raised in the motion for approval. In particular, in light of the rule that was formulated after the application for approval was filed. In these circumstances, even the judgments to which the Respondent referred in this context do not help her, since in the few cases to which she referred in which a reasoned decision was given in this matter, there was a deviation from the causes of action or the causes of invention claimed in the application for approval or in the application for an invention permit.