It should be noted that Article 8 is not mentioned in the statement of claim, and was mentioned for the first time in the plaintiff's main witness affidavit.
- "Quality Management in Global Organization: Expanding the Process Approach for Global Processes" ( hereinafter renamed "Applying a New Conceptual Process Approach to Global Quality Management in A Dynamic and Complex Reality" (Article No. 9 of the Plaintiff's list of sources, attached as Appendix 20 to the affidavit, hereinafter: "Article 9").
Article 9 was forwarded to Dr. Cordova on July 10, 2021 (about two months before the defendants' article was published).
- According to the plaintiffs, there is a "proven lateral congruence" between the products of the plaintiff's and Prof. Nota's various researches, and in particular between articles 8 and 9, and the defendants' article. According to them, the defendants took in their article the innovative products of the plaintiff's research (especially those in articles 8 and 9) and presented its findings, conclusions and developments, using camouflage techniques, as an ostensible research product of defendant 1's doctoral dissertation. The plaintiffs further claim that the findings of the defendants' article and its conclusions could not have been reached in such a short period of time, of about three months since the approval of defendant 1's research proposal. Especially when it is not a field study, but rather a pilot "exploring" study, based on interviews with 7 professionals.
- The defendants deny the allegation of copying outright. According to Dr. Cordova, articles 8 and 9 of the plaintiff were transferred to her for the purpose of improving them for publication in journals, and she did convey her comments on them to the plaintiff, without any use of these articles by her. According to the defendants, their article is based on the results of the pilot study that was carried out following Ms. Agmon's research proposal. This is a qualitative study in which 7 renowned experts were interviewed, of which Prof. Nota is one of them. It combines three disciplines: Global Quality Management, Systems Engineering, and Systems Thinking. Only the first of them is also shared by the plaintiff. Specifically, the subject of thearticle, as its title also appears, focuses on global quality management of "System of Systems" (SOS), a field in which the plaintiff did not engage. In addition, in terms of the schedule, the article presents in an almost identical manner the findings of the study, the analysis of the results and the conclusions presented by Ms. Agmon to the examiners committee on June 20, 2021, even before the plaintiff forwarded articles 8 and 9 to Dr. Finally, the plaintiff did not refer to copyright infringement, but only to ideas that were not protected.
The Sequence of the Legal Proceedings
- Upon filing the statement of claim, the plaintiff also filed a request for a temporary injunction to prevent the use of the defendants' article and to remove its publications. On April 13, 2022, a hearing was held on the application, the parties' statements were questioned about their affidavits, and later the parties, at their request, summarized their arguments in writing.
On June 28, 2022, I issued my decision in which I rejected the motion, noting that the plaintiffs failed to point to prima facie evidence of the existence of a cause of action, i.e., "prima facie evidence of the existence of a material similarity between the article and the Applicant's works." In this context, I noted that in the Applicants' summaries there is "not a single reference to the single concrete evidence of the existence of a substantial similarity between the article and the Applicant's works". I also insisted that for the purpose of proof, the plaintiffs must obtain an expert opinion, which would refer the court individually to the violating paragraphs from the article and write ""In Rachel, your little daughter" what are the findings, statements or data contained therein, which were unlawfully copied from the applicants; It will also refer the court in a detailed and annotated manner to the documents or raw products of the applicants from which those infringing findings, data or statements were taken."
- At the affidavit stage, the plaintiffs submitted affidavits on their behalf, as well as on behalf of Ms. Shoshana Zucker, a tab editor who edited both the plaintiff's articles, including articles 8 and 9, and the defendants' article. In addition, in order to substantiate the claim of copying, and further to my comments in the decision regarding the temporary relief, the plaintiffs submitted no less than four expert opinions.
The defendants, for their part, submitted affidavits on their behalf only, without expert opinions.