In the plaintiff's affidavit (at paragraph 27) and in her testimony in court, the plaintiff claimed that she continued to update the book until it was printed in early 2018 (pp. 7-8 of the transcript of the first hearing). However, according to the plaintiff's affidavit given in support of the plaintiffs' response of May 4, 2022 (in paragraph 3), it was written that "the date of publication of the book is exactly in accordance with the date written on the first page of the book" - i.e., in 2017. Paragraph 4 of the affidavit states that "no further changes were made to the edition after 2017." The versions are incompatible with each other.
Moreover, the defendants referred in their summaries (in paragraph 49) to the fact that the alleged 2017 edition includes (at p. 282) a reference to the ISO 9004 standard, which was published in April 2018, i.e., after the alleged date of publication. This evidence ostensibly refutes the claim that the book was published in 2017, and even substantially erodes the claim that it was published in early 2018.
On the other hand, the plaintiffs, both in the main summaries and in the reply summaries, did not address this issue at all, and did not respond to the serious claim raised against them.
In view of the conclusion that I have reached, according to which a similarity in the element for which there is a copyright has not been proven, I am not required to set rivets on this issue. Similarly, I am not required to address additional issues raised by the defendants: the fact that the term G-QMS , which is found in the title of the defendants' article and in its body article, was noted on page 478 of the "2017 edition" P/8 as appearing in several chapters in the book, but in practice it does not appear in it (I allowed the plaintiff to search for the term in her booklet, and it was not found - see pp. 11-12 of the transcript of the first hearing. In the second hearing, the plaintiff's counsel noted that the term was found and I asked him to refer to it in the summaries, but no reference was made in the summaries - pp. 2-3 of the transcript of the second hearing); and that in the framework of the discovery of the documents of December 15, 2022, the plaintiffs forwarded a letter signed by Ms. Shoshana Zucker dated July 25, 2022, and thereafter the plaintiffs forwarded an almost identical version of the same letter from the same date, but with one change - the figure of the date of the transfer of article 8 on August 15, 2021, which is very close to the date of publication of the defendants' article, was deleted (in paragraph 8) and it was written only that the article was forwarded "later" (Appendices 21-22 to the defendants' affidavits). Ms. Zucker had no explanation for this matter - pp. 18-19 of the transcript of the first hearing).