Together with the application for approval, the applicant's application for determination of methods of invention was submitted, and on January 17, 2024, his (amended) application was granted. After the claim documents were provided to her, the respondent filed, on March 29, 2026, the motion for denial of authority. The Applicant responded to the request on April 13, 2026, and on May 20, 2026, a response was submitted TDK To the Applicant's Response. On June 11, 2026, a hearing was held on the application in the presence of the parties, the applicant was questioned about his affidavit and the parties' summaries were heard, and now the time for a decision has arrived.
Discussion and Decision
- In her application that is the subject of this decision, she argued TDK that the conditions for an invention outside the jurisdiction are not met, mainly for the reason that the applicant has not proved the existence of a cause of action under Regulation 166(5) For the Regulations Civil Procedure, 5779 - 2018 (since no minimal basis was laid for the claim that the class members suffered damage in Israel that the respondents could have foreseen), and did not even prove a cause of action (since the request for approval relies on Israeli law, which does not apply in our case). It was also argued that the court in Israel is not the proper forum to hear the proceeding.
As I will detail below, after considering the arguments of the parties and the customary precedent, I found that the application should be dismissed, and that the submission to respondent No. 2 should be approved and it should be determined that this court is authorized to hear the proceeding and is the appropriate forum to hear it.
- As is well known, a litigant who wishes to produce a statement of claim outside the scope of the claim is required to overcome three main hurdles: he must prove that there is a cause of action (when the burden of proof required for it is at the level of the existence of a "claim worthy of argument"); he must prove that he has a cause of action (when the burden of proof required for this component is lower, and it is at the level of a "serious question that is not a frivolous claim"); and finally he must satisfy the court that the court in Israel is the appropriate forum to hear the claim (see, For example, Civil Appeal 9725/04 Ashburn Agencies and Trading Company Ltd. CAE Electroics Ltd. (September 4, 2007) (hereinafter: the Ashburn case), at paragraph 6 of the judgment;Civil Appeal Authority 2625/24 ADESON KEVIN v. Better Place Israel Ltd. (June 4, 2024). These are the requirements set forth in the case law dealing with the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5744-1984, but the prevailing opinion in case law is that there has been no change in this matter even after the enactment of the 5779 Regulations (see, for example, Civil Appeal Authority 8854/22 The Dow Chemicals Company v. Jacobson Agencies Ltd. (March 27, 2023), at paragraph 26 of the judgment;Class Action (Central District) 16038-10-21 Barak v. Master Card International Inc. (August 9, 2022), paragraphs 15-16).
The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916In our case, the Respondent disputed the fulfillment of each of these conditions, the burden of proving which rests, as stated, on the Applicant. Let us turn to the examination of their existence, in their order.