In addition, and in response to the defendants' argument that Regulation 166 of the Regulations is not relevant to our case, the plaintiffs admit that this is indeed the case, and claim that they referred to this regulation only in order to show that even in a theoretical case in which an invention had to be made outside the boundaries, the case would have complied with the provisions of this Regulation.
In light of the aforesaid, the plaintiffs again petitioned to dismiss the defendant's request.
Discussion and Decision;
- As a preliminary remark and prior to the discussion of the merits of the matter, I will begin with the last point - as detailed in the plaintiffs' response - the parties devoted a significant amount of space to the provisions of Regulation 166 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018 (hereinafter: the "Regulations"), which deals with "invention outside the boundaries of the state", as well as Regulation 168 to the regulations dealing with "a request for a denial of authority by virtue of an invention outside the boundaries of the state". The problem is that the parties also do not dispute the lack of relevance to these regulations in the present case, in which there is no dispute that the invention for the defendants was carried out within the boundaries of the State of Israel through Adv. Romano and Adv. Shihai. Therefore, I have not found any reference to these arguments in the chapter of the decision.
- Since the aforesaid has been clarified, and as aforesaid, the parties do not dispute that the invention was lawfully executed within the boundaries of the State of Israel, I will proceed to discuss the application in accordance with the appropriate normative framework - which begins at the time the application is raised, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 29 of the Regulations, which states:
"29. A party shall raise a claim of lack of authority, a foreign jurisdiction stipulation or an improper forum at the first opportunity after the filing of the statement of claim; If a party does not raise these claims on such a date, the court may award costs in favor of the opposing party or in favor of the State Treasury." (my emphasis - L.B.)