The District Court of Tel Aviv revoked Plaintiff’s patent for lack of novelty and inventive step. The Court held that if the man skilled in the art can carry out the patented invention on the basis of a prior publication (albeit it does not disclose all the elements of the patented invention), it is enough to destroy novelty and inventive step from the later patent. The court rejected the opinion of the expert appointed on its behalf and based the findings on the evidence in their entirety including the cross examination of the court appointed expert, which contradicted its written opinion.