In light of the aforesaid, the defendants are of the opinion that the correct and appropriate forum for filing and managing the claim is the United States, which has the most material and substantive connections to the events described in the statement of claim.
- In response, the plaintiffs reiterate all their arguments as they were argued in their response to the motion.
including their claim that the application should be rejected out of hand due to a delay in its submission. As for this, the plaintiffs add that the statement of claim was filed in July 2022, the statement of defense was filed on January 1, 2023 (more than two years ago), and that during the time that passed, three pre-trial meetings were held, two judgments were rendered that were canceled, and no less than 32 motions were filed, and therefore, if only for this reason, the request should be dismissed out of hand.
The plaintiffs further reiterate their argument that there is no reason to relate to the connection between the defendants and Israel, but only to the very execution of the invention, as well as to their claim that in any case most of the connections are to Israel (as already detailed above) and to their claim that in light of all the above, the Israeli forum is the proper forum and that in any case the burden of proving that this is not the case is on the defendants who did not shoulder this burden and did not even succeed in establishing any other proper forum.
Without derogating from the aforesaid, it was argued that in the present case, the Israeli court acquired its jurisdiction in accordance with the "rule of concept" - according to which, even if the defendant himself is not in Israel, the court can be granted international jurisdiction by producing the statement of claim to another party in Israel, which is considered the defendant's "long hand". It was argued that such a lawful invention leads to the establishment of international jurisdiction for the Israeli court. It was argued that this rule applies in our case, since there is no dispute that the original and amended statement of claim was provided to the defendants through their counsel in Israel , and this matter was even discussed and decided in the framework of this case. It was claimed that thereafter, for two years, counsel for the defendants acted on behalf of the three defendants as one entity. Thus, there can be no dispute that the Israeli court has international jurisdiction to hear this claim.