Moreover, according to the case law, and as a result of the Supreme Court's directive that the trial should not be conducted at the preliminary stage of granting an invention permit (Ashburn case, paragraph 9), at this stage the experts whose opinions are part of the evidentiary fabric on which the decision regarding the invention is based are not examined (Appeal against Registrar's Decision (Tel Aviv) 31816-10-19 Deutsche Bank AG v. The Success of the Consumer Movement for the Promotion of a Fair Economic Society(4.2.2020(). Moreover, according to the case law, it is not impossible that at the stage of the hearing of the application for approval, after the completion of the disclosure and review procedures, the applicants will be able to amend the opinion as necessary, taking into account the information gaps that exist between the parties (Class Action (Center) 42389-01-16 Amir Zilberberg v. Panasonic Corporation (decision of February 19, 2020).
It follows from the aforesaid that given that an opinion of an economic expert has been placed before me which substantiates the claim of the very existence of damage, in the absence of evidence to contradict it, and given the information gaps between the parties, this is sufficient to meet the required threshold of a claim worthy of argument, when the question of the very existence of damage and its extent will be examined in the main proceeding, after all the relevant information has been disclosed to both parties. An opinion will be submitted on their behalf on the basis of this information, and it is very possible that even after the appointment of an expert on behalf of the court for the purpose of assessing the damage (compare: the case of the cargo cartel in paragraph 87 of the judgment).
- And to be precise. I have not lost sight of the many and varied arguments of the Respondent in relation to Sharon's opinion. However, beyond the fact that a significant part of these arguments are based on facts that were not supported by an affidavit or any evidence, they do not undermine the basis for the opinion at this stage of the proceedings.
Thus, the arguments regarding the omission of a relevant section and the meaning of this section, the claims regarding the correctness of the expert's assumptions in relation to the level of competition in some of the relevant sections, as well as the claims of ignoring these or other characteristics of any of the segments - are factual claims or claims of expertise that have not been supported by evidence, and do not at this stage refute the expert's conclusions in these contexts.