Tel Aviv Court Grants Woman Shares in Company and Patent Registered to Husband’s Brother

The Tel Aviv Family Court ruled this week that a woman will receive shares in a company and a patent registered under her husband’s brother’s name as part of their divorce proceedings. The decision came after it was determined that the husband and his brother attempted to conceal their equal ownership rights. The legal dispute centered on the husband’s rights to a company and a unique technology patent officially registered to his brother. The woman, represented by attorneys Roy Sidi and Aviad Shanon, argued that half the company’s rights belonged to her husband and thus were part of the couple’s joint property.

The brothers, descendants of a prominent construction family, initially co-owned a different company with the husband as the sole registered shareholder. In 2018, they established the current company with the brother as the sole shareholder on record. The woman claimed the brothers operated a scheme where ownership was formally registered under alternating siblings, but in reality, they were equal partners managing the business together. The company developed patents that reduce project timelines by 30 percent.

The brother claimed he was caught in the couple’s conflict and insisted he was the sole owner, employing the husband as a salaried worker. He acknowledged the husband’s active role and trust but denied it granted ownership rights. The woman presented contracts showing the husband invented the patent, controlled company finances beyond his salary, managed the company, liaised with the accountant, and was publicly represented as the company owner.

Judge Tzipi Cohen Avitan ruled that the company and patent are equally owned by the husband and his brother, stating, "This is a family business in every respect, and the defendants have equal rights regardless of formal registration." The judge found the brothers’ testimonies inconsistent and unreliable, noting the brother’s ignorance of company financial management was implausible for a sole owner. The court concluded the brothers acted jointly in all matters and that the company’s formal registrations were economically motivated and did not reflect reality. The husband and brother were ordered to pay 100,000 shekels in legal costs.