Therefore, in light of all of the above, I am of the opinion that the Applicant has proven that Microsoft Israel represents Microsoft Corporation in Israel in connection with the "matter" that is the subject of the lawsuit. Therefore, the invention for Microsoft Israel should be viewed as a lawful invention for Microsoft Corporation." (emphasis added) - A.W.).
- Before concluding, I will clarify that the decision of the trial court requires intervention, since the rejection of the application for leave to appeal means causing injustice to the applicant, and violating her right to bring the dispute she has with respondent 1 before the court. Admittedly, even today the Applicant has the option of making an invention outside the boundaries, in accordance with Regulations 166-167, but there is no dispute that this is a more complex proceeding, and if the conditions of Regulation 163(c) are met, it is not only a matter of "convenience considerations", but a significant advantage that the subordinate legislature sought to grant, in certain circumstances, to the plaintiff who wishes to apply jurisdiction in Israel to a foreign company, and this, as stated, with the clear purpose of dealing with the growth of cross-border corporate activity (the Microsoft case).
- In view of all of the above, I found that the appeal should be accepted, and that respondent 2 is the representative of respondent 1, for the purpose of producing court documents, as detailed in Regulation 163(c), and that the submission of the statement of claim to her constitutes his lawful submission to respondent 1.
- I charge Respondent No. 2 for the Applicant's expenses in respect of this proceeding in the sum of ILS 10,000.
The amount will be paid within 30 days.
The Secretariat will return to the Applicant the deposit she deposited to secure the Respondent's expenses.
Granted today, August 16,2026, in the absence of the parties.