F
`
`
`
`
`
`
`& CO
`
`Fischer Behar Chen Well Orion & C0 'DIWI “WIN '7H |fl 13:] "HU‘EJ
`
`:
`
`
`
`3 Daniel Frisch Sta, Tel Aviv BUB-ma, Bsraeé | Tel. 972 3.69am i "1, Fax, 972 3.609 me E 03,609,1'116 0.75: ease/4.4131 .‘70 1 6473104 MN 7n ,3 W'WB 7w]? "m
`
`Leah Newstead, Secretary
`Tel. 972-3-6944111
`Fax. 972-3-6091116
`
`fbc@fbc1awyers.com
`
`July 13, 2017
`
`Certification of Translation
`
`1, Leah Newstead hereby declare that
`
`I am proficient
`
`in the Hebrew and English
`
`languages, and the attached translation is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, a true
`
`and accurate translation from Hebrew to English of a decision dated February 2, 2003 by
`
`the Supreme Court in Right to a Civil Appeal 9785/02 Uriel Yarkoni V. Boston Scientific
`
`Corporation. I declare under penalty of perjury that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true, and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be
`
`true.
`
`
`
`Leah Newstead
`
`Microsoft V. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`
`Microsoft, EX. 1044
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1044
`Microsoft v. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`
`

`

`Free Translation from Hebrew
`
`Uriel Yarkoni vs. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
`
`Civil Appeal 9785/02
`
`SUPREME COURT in Jerusalem
`
`Right to a Civil Appeal 9785/02
`
`Before:
`
`The Honorable Justice E. Rivlin
`
`The Applicant:
`
`Uriel Yarkoni
`
`Against
`
`The Respondents: 1. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
`
`2. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC LIMITED
`
`3. MEDINOL LTD
`
`4. The Minister of Justice -
`
`the competent
`
`authority for receiving legal assistance from
`
`another country.
`
`Request for permission to appeal the decisions of the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court in Civil Case
`
`17492/02 in Civil Appeal 2759/02 of 23.10.2002 and 13.11.2002, which was given by the Honorable
`
`Vice-President Justice Y. Gross
`
`On behalf of the Applicant:
`
`Adv. Haim Zadok & Co.
`
`On behalf of the Respondents 1-2:
`
`Adv. Fischer, Behar Chen & Co.,
`
`On behalf of the Respondent No. 3: Adv. Leshem Brandwein
`
`Decision
`
`1.
`
`The Respondents 1-2 on the one side and the Respondent 3 on the other side, are parties to
`
`reciprocal claims concerning civil—commercial disputes, pending in the Federal Court of the
`
`Southern District of New York (hereinafter:
`
`the New York Court). As part of the claims,
`
`Respondent I filed a motion to the New York Court, to conduct a judicial inquiry process of the
`
`Applicant and another witness (hereinafter: the Witnesses), as those who were employed by the
`
`Respondents during the relevant period of the claims and who have important
`
`information
`
`relevant to the issues in dispute between the Respondents.
`
`Microsoft v. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`
`Microsoft, EX. 1044
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1044
`Microsoft v. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`
`

`

`The New York Court granted the request and applied to the Minister of Justice, as the
`
`"Competent Authority" under the Legal Assistance Between States Law, 5758-1998 (hereinafter:
`
`the Legal Aid Law), to take the said evidence.
`
`The Minister of Justice exercised his authority and ordered that the Magistrate's Court would hear
`
`the witnesses, but they objected to their obligation to testify as aforesaid. The main argument of
`
`the Applicant - who is a relevant person to our case - was that the process before the Court is not
`
`a process of collecting evidence, but rather a process known as Deposition. This procedure,
`
`which is accepted in US Courts, is a preliminary procedure for gathering evidence and enquiring
`
`what is the position of potential witnesses by their interrogation. The Applicant argued that since
`
`this procedure does not exist in the Israeli legal system, the Court does not have the authority to
`
`order a judicial inquiry as requested.
`
`The Tel AviV-Jaffa Magistrates Court discussed the objections to the request and decided to
`
`reject them. In a detailed decision, the Court ruled that the proceeding in question meets the
`
`requirements of the Hague Convention and the Legal Aid Law, and therefore the New York
`
`Court should be granted the legal assistance requested by it. It was decided that the need to find
`
`the truth and to perform a fair trial in the proceeding held in the New York Court, overrides the
`
`right of the individual not to be harassed. In View of the above, the Court ordered that the
`
`witnesses must appear in front of the Respondents counsel in Israel, for the judicial inquiry.
`
`The Applicant filed an appeal to the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court against the decision of the
`
`Magistrate's Court. For the sake of caution, an application for leave to appeal was also filed. At
`
`the same time, the Applicant requested that the execution of the decision be stayed.
`
`The District Court rejected the request for a stay of execution. In its decision of October 23,
`
`2002, the Court noted that there is prima facie merit to the Applicant's contention that if his
`
`application will be rejected, such rejection will determine the fate of his appeal. However, after
`
`considering the balance of convenience and the chances of appeal,
`
`the Court reached the
`
`conclusion that delaying execution of the judgment might cause substantial damage to the
`
`Respondents, while the execution of the judgment will not actually cause damage to the
`
`Respondent [sic]. In a decision dated November 13, 2002, the Court also rejected the Applicant's
`
`request to cancel its first decision.
`
`Microsoft v. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1044
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1044
`Microsoft v. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`
`

`

`The Applicant complains against these decisions. He argues that the appeal, in which the delay of
`
`execution was requested, raises the unprecedented question of whether the Legal Aid Law
`
`obligates a person to appear for judicial inquiry by Deposition, which is a process that is not
`
`recognized (and, according to him, is not even allowed) under Israeli law. The Applicant claims
`
`that executing the judicial inquiry before resolving the appeal, will make the appeal redundant
`
`and purely academic, and therefore the execution should be delayed as requested. The Applicant
`
`further argues that the Court erred when it decided to reject his application for a stay in execution
`
`before he submitted his reply to the Respondents' response, as required, in his opinion, according
`
`to Regulation 241 (c1) of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5744-1984 (hereinafter: the Civil
`
`Procedure Regulations).
`
`Respondents 1 and 2 object to the application and rely on the decisions of the lower Courts. They
`
`argue again that the requested judicial inquiry is an essential preliminary procedure for them,
`
`since the Applicant's position is necessary both in order to formulate their claims in the trial and
`
`in order to submit various applications before the evidentiary stage begin. They believe that the
`
`Applicants’ chances of winning the appeal are not good, as the requested procedure actually falls
`
`within the scope of the "Legal Aid" which the State is obligated to render under the Hague
`
`Convention and the Legal Aid Law. The Respondents also contend that the District Court did not
`
`have to wait for the Applicant's response prior to its decision, and in any case they claim that the
`
`second decision of the Court, dated 13 November 2002, was made after the Applicant's response
`
`had been filed.
`
`Respondents 3 and 4 did not take a stand on the request and left the decision to the discretion of
`
`this Court.
`
`After examining the arguments of the parties, I reached the conclusion that the application should
`
`be rejected.
`
`Indeed, in the present case, there is no doubt that if the decision of the Magistrate's Court is not
`
`stayed and the appeal will be approved,
`
`it will be impossible to restore the situation to its
`
`previous state. However, under the circumstances of the case, when the New York Court's
`
`request for assistance is pending, considering that the Magistrate's Court gave its opinion, in a
`
`detailed decision, regarding the Applicant's reservations; and taking into account that the
`
`District Court considered the request to stay the execution twice but did not find it appropriate
`
`to grant such stay — it would not be right to intervene in this discretion. I also believe that the
`
`balance of damages in this case tends to be to the detriment of the Applicant and that the
`
`damage which will be caused to him, as a result of affecting his right nor to be compelled and
`
`Microsoft v. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1044
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1044
`Microsoft v. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`
`

`

`his right to exhaust his arguments within the scope of the appeal, is lower than the damage to
`
`the Respondents in case they will not execute the judicial inquiry.
`
`I also considered the Applicant's additional contention, according to which his right to respond
`
`to the Respondents' response to his request was denied, but I did not find any real grounds to it.
`
`The request for a stay of execution is an interim request in the appeal and as such is subject to
`
`Regulation 465 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, which allows the court to reject the
`
`application, even without hearing the reply of the Applicant to the Respondent's response to the
`
`application. As such, we are not required at this time to decide on the relationship between
`
`Regulation 241 (CI) and Regulation 241 (d) of the Civil Procedure Regulations.
`
`Therefore, the application is rejected. The Applicant shall bear the costs of Respondents 1 and 2
`
`in the amount ofNIS 7,500.
`
`Rendered today, February 2, 2003.
`
`Judge
`
`Microsoft v. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1044
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1044
`Microsoft v. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`
`

`

`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION '3 2311713 bro-nu
`
`9785/02 N)!
`
`50 pkg/V15 Coax? T r 7+ng @600
`
`132':wa 11251”: ummzm 112::
`
`9785/02 N’Wfi
`
`pan 'N Dawn 11::
`
`: 239:1
`
`mm? 5201»;
`
`:wpzmn
`
`1 1 J
`
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION .1
`
`:Duvwnn
`
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC LIMITED .2
`
`MEDINOL LTD .3
`
`mm: nbnpb mnmnn mw-m - mammary 1w .4
`
`J'HI'IN TIJ’TDIQ IPUEJVJD
`
`NW 1111an 17492/02 POMS: 197-1‘1N-5DJ mnnn uswnn 112:1 bw 1mmbnn by mm: mm map:
`
`0m 0 05mm wmn 1m 71:: >12 by mnnw 13.11.2002 tmm 23.10.2002 mm 2759/02
`
`’JTIVJI PI‘TB D3311 1’”)!
`
`:WPJDTI 0W3
`
`’fiWJI 1D 1321 ,WVJ’Q Twill
`
`:1-2 IIIZDWJQW UVJJ
`
`TNI‘IJ'}: CW)? T”1)J
`
`: 3 TIZDWJOTI UV):
`
`
`fiUbfifi
`
`ammo->th 11030 13733110 ,mv-r-rn mwnnb 02113 17: mm 3 nnawnm mm 2-1 mszan
`
`.1
`
`.(p‘nv 123:1 oswnn nu :1bn'3) 17112-1233 m‘rrn um: 50 firm-rm ogwnn nu: m-rmm mnbnn
`
`121 11pm 5w ‘pbn 5mm 1:32va ,nwp: p-m-mn usvmn nub 1 nzmmgn nwun mwzmn mmm
`
`mm: “mm mwzmb monb‘m nmpm mzmwon hm 17310» no: ,(omm :15an mun-0151 wpnnb
`
`.mzmwon 12:1 npwbnm 022mm umwub :nwn 203351 111m 21310
`
`I
`
`*vmw‘n ~05me '11an nevo.co.il M: 1m“; mm: 1::
`C1\Users\sI1am0u\AppData\LOcaINicrosuffiWinduwsITemporary Internet FIIBS‘ICDnteI—Jt,OlItI00k\QQIBKOAITI\0209785.MSFT EX,
`
`.
`
`Microsoft V. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`
`MSFT, Ex. 1044
`Microsoft v. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`
`

`

`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION ’3 UNIT!" mum
`
`9785/02 N3!
`
`PH“) 39 5)! "TDDUDQT‘I DWJWW’ 111131-11 ,D’DQVJDTI Wwb 71391 TWJPJ'D 131)!) P11? 1"): DQWDH nu
`nm‘wn nN nub mum: ,(nmawnn mwn pm nan?) 1998-nvwnn ,nuun p3 momma rm»
`.nhmm
`
`nbN 03m ,Umm nn wow mbwn oswn nu by ‘Jmm Inunvn wmw nw muswnn 3w
`1>bnn >3 nn>n - mm)“: mntnn mnw - wpzmn 3w nupwn 1mm: 7mm ‘rwnb 133mb mmn
`>n33 3:11pm ,m “[7571 Deposition —3 3mm “run UN >3 mm» mm W 1>3n 13m uswnn nu >333w
`mummmg am: my man 313m nvm mum 3w >mpn Tbn n>n ,nunn nu-uzu oswnn
`
`nub map Nb ,num‘wn Dawnn now: 13>>p Nb m 1>3nw 3mm >3 1w wpnnn .13n'1>pn nwsnm
`.wpum v1 “npm amp ‘2» nmn‘: nunvn 09221071
`
`.2
`510319): nobnn: qnm‘rb ounm nun-J33 nmmnn: 11 13>-3uz~4—3n3 01‘)er 0mm: nu
`puvnb \w 13mm ,n>\93wnn mum mm mn nmu mwu‘r 3)! mm: mm ‘pbnn >3 ,mwnn nu .309
`,313 uswn n>>wzn nDNn Wm Tnxn 31> by wpumn mswnn 3mm nN p'm m: uswnn nub
`‘mmn 31x3 .n‘r‘mn >N‘: man 3w mm by 331) pm: 13 ,mn n33 ugwnn nu: bmnnn ‘pbnn
`
`bmwu nuwmn nu-m >3931>1 31p>n3 33>>nn3 13>1y‘: oswnn nu mm
`
`myon 331‘an DDVJD nu nubnn 5)) 313m! >3>-3uz~<—bn3 man 051an nub wun wpzmn
`
`.3
`
`.nobnnn msu nN 3331‘) wpmn 3n» T33 13 mm)! mm nwp: qr: nwnn nwm
`
`13m mom-m: nu Damn nu .mu 3>3>vb nwpm nu nn-r >nm3n unwan nu
`
`b'm nN v‘un‘: >13 13:1 Nn> ,mwp: nn-rn UN >3 ,wpnnn nJvD3 \mn \w mm3b >3 ,23.10.2002
`313%: >3 mponb \sznn nu 1mm rmmm >>13>U nm mrmn mm TIN bpww *1an ,133m hum!
`13 NM pt) :mamb cm» N'J v-rn 31pm msu Wm 33>) pm nu>wnb amt» 3m: 1>~rn pus msu
`.nnwmn unobnn ‘nuu‘: wpzmn nwp: nu ,13.11.2002 mm nobnm ,oswmn nu mm
`
`.4
`mm: ,mxun 313m wpnm 1mman nuier >3 um: um .wpmn vb): nbn nmbnn m3
`-[un unsb p-r 31p>nb 33>>nn3 13m 3>>nb n>03wnn nwwn pm >33 133m UN ,nmupnn nbzwn nn
`mo pm 31p>nb 33>>nnb1 131m .>bmw>n v13 (mm mm m mamawa 33m mm) ,Deposition -n
`
`nN 33gb w> 13>3‘31 mu) n31pr usnn 3133113 nun nu 3n>> ,wpzmn 13m: 13 ,‘mmm 333nm
`
`Muu 313mb anpn nu anb Dunn n» mu: man nu >3 mm qmm wpzmn .wpum msun
`,>mmn p-rn “rm nupn‘; (11}241 mpn >3 ‘3): ,mmwb M3133 ,nuwnn nzmnb unznwn nwnn mo:
`.(>mmn v-rn Tm nupn :1‘2nb) 1984-1unwnn
`
`nuw 1n .NDD5‘1 nmmvn nm‘ann by 1nu> numm nwpnb nmJnn 2-1 1 nuwmn
`
`13223 1n ,nmm wpzmn 5w mm» 13w mm! mm >mp>3 1>bn um wpunn 1>1n 31pm >3 numm
`
`>>>3>o >3 n'nuv 1n .nmmnn 35w bn> mm mm» nwp: nwn 13w 1m own: 1n>nmm wuu
`
`2
`
`fimwm mawm 'mmn nev0.co.i1 My: 313‘? mm 131
`C:\Users\shamou\AppData\Local\Microsofl‘.Windows\'l'cmporary Internet Files\ConIent.Oul|00k\QQIBKOAH\O209785‘ 0
`MSFT, EX. 1044
`
`Microsoft V. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`
`MSFT, Ex. 1044
`Microsoft v. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`
`

`

`
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION u mmv bwfim
`
`9785/02 w
`
`nb "nmswnn n-mwn Tm ban 1m wpunn ‘pbnn 13w ,mmo mm 11m»: wpzmn bw mum
`
`uswnn nu 33 mman may“: 11)! .nmswnn mwn pm mam Jun J'IJDN mm nn-mn numb
`mubnn v3 nmnu 1n mp): bbm ,1nubnn 1n): mu wpnnn nnnnb vmanb mm mm Nb mnnn
`
`.wpmn nnwn nbzpnw ‘1an mm) ,13.11.02 mm ,oswnn nu bw nnwn
`
`.m Dawn nu bw mm bnbvwb mnbnn nN nmwm mum: mm mm N‘) 4-1 3 mzmmn
`
`.mmnb nwpzm 17*! >3 mptmb mum ,0vaer mm: 312% >njmw '1an
`
`.5
`
`11mm mbwn Dawn nu nubnn bw mum 3313» Nb DN >3 p90 1m ,mm mm: ,pN
`bw mum nwpzwb —1mvn mmsz ,nm on ‘rm .mm-rpb 33mm TIN nvwnb man m m Nnv ,bnpm
`,nmmn nvbnru gnu-r DN 1313 mbwn voan nuw 13:1 nwnnn: ,n‘mm rmbn 1,7113 m: man nu
`1133b N3}: Nb 7N 137mm 351va :nbwb nwpzm nN bpw mnnn Dawnn nuw 13:11 wpzmn mmvnnnb
`
`nznnb mm m man uvpun mm >3 nun 7»: qN .m ny‘r bum): :nvnnb 01pm 1m — nb 1nwnb
`
`nnuvu TIN numb mum n91: van mmnb mm: nvusnn mum: ,1b mm» pun >31 wmnn
`
`.1117va DN mwnnn N'J cm numnb mnw pun m ban :11):er man-m:
`
`numnn nznwn by :mnb mm nnmp mob ,wpnnn bw naoun mam: nu qN vnbpw
`
`mpn nvbv nbn 11331-111113}: am»: 3'1pr wn msun 2113’)! map: .wmo n: mum Nb “IN ,mwpnb
`
`nzmn nwnw Nbb “IN ,nwpnn nu mmb us:an nub mwszmn ,vmmn Wm TIU nupnb 465
`
`mpn V21 Drum nbzw: wwnb ,an nyb ,mw'm 1m 1m ,‘DVJ 1w: .nwgbnb mme nznwnb wpzmn
`
`.vmmn rm TIU nnpnb (1)241 mpn 1va (11}241
`
`.rww 7,500 10:: 2-1 1 nuwnn nmznn: NV» wpmn .nvrm nwpzn ,1: bid 1%:
`
`.(z.2.2003)1”vwn 021mb ,mm .13an
`
`091W
`
`KBN/ 02097850_P02.d00.n10’31 71371)) “UN/‘5 ‘1193 P3119?!
`
`www.court.g0v.il
`
`,DJWDJ’N VIN ; 02-6750444 ’50 ,mm Dim
`
`DID’JI mm) 5513595 ‘1193 TH HUD
`
`3
`
`ibmw‘n mamn 'mmn nev0.co.i1 aw: "nab rman 1:11
`C:\Users\sham0u\AppData\Local‘-.Microsol’l‘.Wmdows\Temporary Internet Files'\Conlem.0ullnok".QQlBKOAI—I\0209785. o-
`MSFT, EX. 1044
`Microsoft V. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`
`MSFT, Ex. 1044
`Microsoft v. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`
`