The possibility of invention through a representative, in accordance with Regulation 163(c), is one of the cases in which the subordinate legislature recognized the "constructive presence" of a defendant in Israel, and this option was intended to "catch up" with the growth trend of cross-border corporate activity (Microsoft case , paragraph 15).
See also: Civil Appeals Authority 3774/22 Taro Industries Pharmacists Ltd. v. Haight [Nevo] (October 25,2022) (hereinafter: "the Taro case"), paragraphs 18-19; Civil Appeal Authority 57925-11-24 Philip Morris Switzerland Sàrl v. Tessler [Nevo] (March 8,2025) (hereinafter: the "Philip Morris" case).
For the general trend to expand the jurisdiction of the Israeli court over foreign defendants, especially in the business context, in light of the intense increase in multinational activity, and the transformation of the global space into a 'small world', see also: Civil Appeal Authority 4625/22 Navana v. Katz [Nevo] (January 10,2023)
- In the Taro case , the question of invention through an Israeli parent company to its foreign subsidiary was discussed. The court discussed, for the first time, the differences between Regulation 482(a) and the old Regulations and Regulation 163(c) of the new Regulations, and emphasized that for the purpose of interpreting Regulation 163(c) of the New Regulations and its actual application in a concrete case, the issue of acquiring authority must also be taken into account, and not only the issue of notification. This, inter alia, in view of the addition of Regulation 158(a), which has no parallel in the old regulations.
- In the Microsoft case, the Honorable Justice Ronen noted the necessary caution in applying the tests detailed in Regulation 163(c) against the background of its purposes, but also on the fact that one must be careful against strict and restrictive interpretation, which may miss the purpose. This is how it was ruled there:
"As stated, in accordance with what was stated in the Taro case, in order to fulfill the purposes underlying Regulation 163(c), the tests set forth therein, and in particular the term 'in the same matter', must be interpreted with caution in order to ensure that the defendant should indeed be regarded as being constructively 'present' in Israel, in light of the relationship between him and the Israeli representative.