Landmark cases and
precedents
A selection of matters handled by Adi Levit and Deborah Kazis over their careers, together with foundational cases from Levit’s earlier practice. Matters already presented in Selected Matters are not repeated here.
AES Systems v. Saar | Non-Competes and Trade Secrets
Adi Levit represented Moshe Saar in a leading Israeli Supreme Court case on post-employment restraints. The Court held that a desire to suppress competition, without more, does not justify a non-compete restriction; enforcement must protect a legitimate interest and remain proportionate. Saar succeeded on his cross-appeal, and the monetary award against him was set aside. The decision is available in English through the Cardozo/Versa project and continues to feature in comparative writing on non-competes, trade secrets and employee mobility.
Afterlife: academic English translation and foreign comparative scholarship.
Read judgment (PDF) → English translation (VERSA) →Hughes Aircraft | Claim Construction and the Inventive Core
A foundational Israeli Supreme Court patent decision addressing claim construction, the inventive core, equivalents, novelty and inventive step. Levit was involved in the legal team during his earlier-firm years. The decision remains an important reference point in Israeli patent law, is available in full English translation through Cardozo and in WIPO Lex, and appears in teaching materials and comparative scholarship.
Afterlife: WIPO Lex, Cardozo, comparative scholarship and teaching.
Read judgment (PDF) → WIPO Lex → English translation →Sanitovsky v. Taamas | Doctrine of Equivalents
CA 4867/92. A major Israeli patent authority concerning the boundary between literal claim language and substantially equivalent technical variants. The decision examines the relationship among the inventive core, technological contribution and scope of protection, within a doctrinal line in which Levit worked. Sanitovsky continues to appear in Israeli teaching materials and international reference works discussing the Israeli doctrine of equivalents.
Afterlife: academic teaching and international professional references.
Read judgment (PDF) →Merck / Fosalan | Unjust Enrichment Before Patent Grant
In LCA 6025/05, the Supreme Court considered whether unjust-enrichment law could supply exclusivity for a patent application before grant. The ruling limited the use of restitutionary law to create protection not yet supplied by the patent statute. Adi Levit represented Unipharm. The case provides an important counterpoint to Sanofi: the two authorities mark different boundaries for unjust enrichment in patent disputes. Merck appears in comparative patent literature and university teaching.
Afterlife: comparative patent scholarship and Israeli university syllabi.
Read judgment (PDF) →Roy Export / Charlie Chaplin | Copyright
Mifal Hapayis v. Roy Export considered copyright protection for motion pictures and distinct fictional characters, including the qualitative assessment of a substantial part taken from a work. Adi Levit acted for Mifal Hapayis; the appeal was dismissed and should not be described as a client victory. The judgment’s significance outlived that result: it appears in WTO/TRIPS materials and international copyright scholarship.
Afterlife: WTO/TRIPS materials and international copyright literature.
Tzahori v. Regba | Process Patents and Direct Products
An important Supreme Court decision on Section 50 of the Israeli Patents Law and the evidentiary presumption concerning a product obtained directly from a patented process. The judgment also discussed contributory infringement, although not every such observation formed part of its binding holding. Adi Levit was among counsel for the appellants. Tzahori is discussed in comparative patent scholarship, including the Israel chapter of Cambridge’s Injunctions in Patent Law.
Afterlife: Cambridge comparative patent scholarship.
Unipharm v. SmithKline | Selection Patents
CA 8802/06 addressed the place of the English selection-patent doctrine in Israeli law. The Supreme Court questioned treating that doctrine as an independent path outside the statutory novelty and inventive-step tests, without categorically invalidating selection patents. Adi Levit represented Unipharm, although the appeal did not succeed. The decision has been discussed in English-language professional commentary, appears in teaching materials and has circulated through materials submitted in U.S. patent proceedings.
Afterlife: teaching, English commentary and U.S. patent-proceeding materials.
Mifromal v. Klil | Registered Designs
A leading registered-design decision emphasizing the overall visual impression of a product rather than a magnifying-glass search for minor differences. Adi Levit worked on registered-design matters in this litigation line during his earlier-firm years. The decision attracted English-language professional coverage and remains a reference point in Israeli design law.
Afterlife: English-language professional coverage and later design-law use.
NITE | Copyright in Protected Test Items
Adi Levit and Deborah Kazis represented the National Institute for Testing and Evaluation in copyright-enforcement matters concerning psychometric test questions. A central issue was whether an original test item — including the crafted relationship between a question and its answer distractors — could be protected as a work in its own right. A 2009 consent judgment used the term “protected items” in a permanent injunction; a further 2016 lawsuit reflected the same approach; and NITE’s 2022 official historical presentation records a sustained enforcement policy. This is evidence of institutional continuity, not a claim of a single globally binding judgment.
Status: sustained institutional copyright practice.
Blumenfeld v. Nira Harel | Copyright and Scènes à Faire
Adi Levit represented author Nira Harel in a copyright dispute exploring the boundary between unprotectable plot elements dictated by the subject matter and original protectable expression. The claim was dismissed, and the decision became part of Israel’s discussion of the scènes à faire principle. Its domestic doctrinal relevance is established; direct foreign engagement with the Israeli judgment has not yet been documented.
Status: domestic doctrinal authority; direct foreign afterlife unverified.
A curated record, not an exhaustive database.
The archive highlights selected matters that illustrate the firm’s work and doctrinal contribution. Links are included where a reliable judgment source is available.