In R. Portal Project Management Ltd. and Others v. Polybat Panels Ltd. and Others, Central District Court, Civil Case 26995-11-25 (6 August 2026), Judge Avi Stav denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against the marketing of burial systems alleged to infringe Israeli patent No. 253936 and two registered designs. The applicants had not established sufficiently persuasive evidence of patent infringement or apparent design infringement in the product actually marketed by the respondents. The court nevertheless required the respondents to keep organized records of relevant sales.
The Burial System, Patent and Registered Designs
The applicants, R. Portal Project Management and Ronen David Portal, relied on Israeli patent No. 253936, entitled “Structure and Method for Saturated Burial,” together with registered designs Nos. 57520 and 58625. The system was described as using interlocking expanded-polystyrene panels to form burial structures while accommodating requirements relating to religious burial practices.
The respondents maintained that several different versions had been developed, including an experimental model, a side system and a newly marketed system. This distinction was central: the evidence used to compare the parties’ systems did not always address the product for which the applicants were seeking an injunction. Separate proceedings to cancel the patent were also pending.
Patent Infringement Must Be Established Through the Claims
The applicants relied primarily on claim 11, which concerned a method for constructing burial systems by working expanded-polystyrene blocks into longitudinal and transverse walls and connecting them through prismatic recesses in a matrix structure.
They invoked the protection of the “essence of the invention” under Section 49 of Israel’s Patents Law, 5727-1967. The court emphasized that protection extending beyond literal infringement still has to be anchored in the actual patent claims. The essence of an invention does not provide a free-standing monopoly over an abstract technological idea. The court referred, among other authorities, to Hughes Aircraft Company v. State of Israel, Civil Appeal 345/87, on claim construction and the scope of patent protection.
The parties disputed whether the longitudinal and transverse walls had to be cut from the same block, the meaning of cutting in the claim and whether the competing product’s recesses met the claimed prismatic configuration. The court considered that the technical and interpretive record did not adequately resolve these matters at the interlocutory stage. It did not hold that an expert opinion is categorically indispensable in every preliminary injunction application; its absence mattered in the particular evidentiary setting.
Balance of Convenience and the Pending Patent Cancellation
Applying the interlocutory relief framework under Regulation 95 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, the court considered the prima facie claim, the balance of convenience and equitable considerations. It rejected allegations that merely bringing the motion demonstrated bad faith.
However, the applicants had not adequately established the likely scope of harm to their business, while the respondents showed that sales could be recorded for possible later quantification. The separate patent cancellation matter was relatively close to a decision. The court observed that if the patent survived and an interpretation favorable to the applicants emerged, they could seek interim relief again. Refusing the present motion did not determine patent validity or finally dispose of the infringement claim.
Why the Registered Design Claims Did Not Support the Injunction
Both designs predated the current Designs Law and were assessed under the former Patents and Designs Ordinance. The relevant question concerned a “fraudulent or obvious imitation” and the overall visual impression of the products on the relevant consumer.
The registered views depicted combinations of longitudinal and transverse walls rather than necessarily conferring separate exclusivity on each wall. Many comparisons submitted by the applicants involved the experimental product, whereas the injunction concerned the new model being marketed. The newer model contained differences in wall rails, numbers of channels, ground connection apertures and additional slots.
The applicants did not meaningfully demonstrate why those differences lacked design significance, instead calling them cosmetic. The court therefore did not find adequate prima facie evidence of infringement by the new marketed system. It did not finally determine whether the earlier experimental model infringed, since that model was no longer being marketed; similarity regarding the side system was likewise not sufficiently shown.
The Result and Its Significance for Israeli IP Litigation
The motion was dismissed on both patent and design grounds, without an award of costs at that stage. The respondents were directed to maintain consolidated sales records and supporting documents so that relevant transactions could later be quantified if infringement were established.
For foreign patent and design owners, the decision underscores the importance of aligning the asserted rights, the actual commercial product and the evidence submitted. A patent claim chart should address the precise claim elements and competing product. A design comparison must be performed for the precise model sought to be restrained. Evidence about an experimental predecessor may be inadequate to justify stopping a later, materially different version.
For the wider enforcement framework, see Patent Litigation in Israel and Preliminary Injunctions in Israeli Design Infringement Cases.
