Thus, once the applicants based their application on Israeli law alone, they were not obliged to argue and detail all the relevant evidence with respect to the possibility of the applicability of the foreign law, and such a reference is also possible in the framework of the response to the arguments in the response to the request for approval. The risk that the applicants take upon themselves in such a case is that to the extent that their claim that Israeli law applies is rejected, there is a possibility that the application for approval will be rejected, in the absence of grounds by virtue of foreign law.
At the very least, taking into account the light burden imposed on the applicants at this stage with regard to proving the cause of action, it must be determined that it is sufficient that there is a reasonable possibility that the applicants will be able to complete the argument regarding the applicable law in the framework of the response to the response, and that it is possible to examine the arguments and give them the proper weight in the framework of the examination if the applicants have met the burden of establishing a cause of action (compare: Matter Granot, in paragraph 25).
Since I have determined, at least at this stage, that the Applicants were not obliged to detail all the facts, claims and evidence to substantiate their argument regarding the applicability of Israeli law in the framework of the application for approval, and they were entitled to complete it, if necessary, in the framework of the response to the response to the motion for approval, it was also not required to detail them in the framework of the application regarding the methods of execution of the invention. This is because, in the framework of this application, the Applicant is required to detail the facts that establish the cause of action and no more.
- The conclusion that arises from the aforesaid - at least for this stage of the proceedings only - is that the applicants were not obliged to detail all of their arguments and evidence regarding the applicable law already in the application for approval, and there was therefore no impediment to them detailing and substantiating them with evidence and in a more detailed manner in the framework of the response to the argument raised by the respondent in the matter, which in our case arose in the framework of the heresy application and not in response to the request for approval, so that the applicants were entitled to respond to it in the framework of their response to the heresy request.
In view of the aforesaid, I see no impediment to addressing the arguments and evidence that the applicants placed before me in the framework of the response to the request for heresy, even if these were not attached to the application for approval.