On the surface, its not a big deal...

I thought it was worth sharing with you my one last try to hold the folks at law360.com accountable for their factually incorrect reporting on CANVS V USA. Below is the back and forth between me and Julia Revzin the law360.com editor.

---

---

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein wrote:

Dear Julia:

Claiming that ambiguous information caused you and your staff to behave in a manner that is potentially injurious to CANVS Corporation by no means absolves you of your responsibility in this matter.

No effort on the part of law360.com was made to contact me, CANVS, or its legal representatives prior to the publication of the offending article.

I am asking you once again to run the retraction/correction to your published statement that is false, negligent, and harmful to me and my company.

Thank you for attention in this matter,

Sincerely,

Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein President, CANVS Corporation

---

On 3/6/2014 1:54 PM, Law360 Editor wrote:

Hi Jon,

Stewart Bishop corrected the article, but the editors decided against issuing a formal correction due to some ambiguous language in the complaint on which the erroneous information was based.

Best,

Julia Revzin

Legal News & Data
860 Broadway, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Phone: 646-783-7100 ext 3
Fax: 646-783-7162
editor@law360.com
www.law360.com

---

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein wrote:

Dear Julia:
Please E-Mail me a copy of the law360.com retraction when it is posted so that I have a record of your correcting the potentially damaging and factually incorrect information that law360.com posted in the public domain about me and my company.

I have documented the fact that I have spoken to you (the editor of law360.com) and to Stewart Bishop (the writer of the law360 post about my company). I would appreciate a timely response to my request along with your posting of the corrections that I sent you on 24FEB14 (see below).

Thank you for your consideration in this matter, I look forward to your response,

Sincerely,

Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein
President, CANVS Corporation

---

On 2/24/2014 5:48 PM, Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein wrote:

Dear Julia:

Reference your article:

http://www.law360.com/articles/496259/claims-pared-in-contractor-s-night-vision-ip-row

Here is the CANVS material as promised:

***************************************************************************************

Jonathan A. Walkenstein, President and CEO of CANVS Corporation:

"I would like to clarify one point brought up in the law360.com posting related to CANVS V USA: CANVS has never inspected, or claimed to have inspected an Enhanced Night Vision Goggle (ENVG) manufactured by Insight Technology. CANVS did however inspect an ENVG manufactured by IT&T's Night Vision Division on two different occasions. It should be noted that it is CANVS' position that any ENVG that met the US Governments requirements as stipulated in the associated ENVG calls for proposals and subsequent contracts are infringing on the CANVS patent (US Patent Number 6,911,652)."

Joseph J. Zito (Attorney for CANVS):

"Far from "paired down" CANVS' case significantly advanced forward. The Government's only defense to its direct theft was invalidity and the Government lost that issue. The case is almost over for the government, which is now left without viable defenses or excuses. The government's incredulous claim, that some government employee named Hansen invented a fused goggle ten years before Mr. Walkenstein, was summarily rejected by the United States Court of Claims."

***************************************************************************************

If there are any questions feel free to contact me via email (jon@canvs.com) or phone (305) 582-3301.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

Sincerely,

Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein President, CANVS Corporation

---

On 2/18/2014 5:15 PM, Law360 Editor wrote:

Hi Jon,

Just following up to make sure I didn't miss it - did you send your correction request in writing to editor@law360.com clearly marked as correction?

Best,

Julia Revzin
Legal News & Data
860 Broadway, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Phone: 646-783-7100 ext 3
Fax: 646-783-7162
editor@law360.com
www.law360.com

---

Note: On FR 07MAR14 They "fixed" the factual error (this is not technically a "retraction"), but asked me not to post the corrections...about what I expected.

5 to represent over 1,000,000 (less than 0.0005% of the facts)?

1000 sheets of 8.5 x 11 printer paper is roughly 10 pounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_density

Since I submitted around 170,000 pages of hard copy evidence in CANVS V USA, that makes for 1,700 pounds of hard copy evidence (probably weighed over one tonne when you count the page protectors, notebooks, post it notes, and boxes).

We are not even going to address my testimony to Congress, the video tapes, DVDs, and digital video footage based evidence.

In addition to the hard copy evidence I have over one million soft copy documents. Please note I did not say one million pages, I said documents. Because the file types vary (pdf, Word, XL, PowerPoint, E-Mail, Images, code, and others) and span two decades of computer hardware and software I have never had reason to do a hard page count.

Let us look at the minimum of 1,000,000 pages, if it was all printed out, the soft copy would weigh at least 10,000 pounds. If it were ten pages per document (which is probably closer to the true count) it would weigh 100,000 pounds.

It should also be noted that as of yet the CANVS discovery process (in CANVS V USA) has been stayed for over 3 years, meaning I have yet to see one page of the materials that I have requested from the Government (God only knows how much evidence they have hiding in all the various Agencies, Labs, and other classified nooks and crannies of the system I have tangled with over all these years).

What I am getting at is that with all the information associated with this case, and all of the materials that can not be released into the public domain because it is restricted under protective order by the court, is or was classified, is or was proprietary, is or was confidential, I find it astounding that the official Government sanctioned and released information about this case totals the FIVE (5) Documents below!

---

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/CAMPBELL-sMITH.CANVS121313A.pdf
10-540C CANVS CORPORATION V. THE UNITED STATES
Filed 12/13/2013

Patents; Summary Judgment; Anticipation Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (2006); Obviousness Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103; Expert Testimony Signed by Judge Campbell-Smith.

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/HEWITT.CANVS041613.pdf
10-540C CANVS CORPORATION V. THE UNITED STATES
Filed 04/16/2013

Motion to Reconsider Order of Dismissal of Patent Claims for Failure to Prosecute; RCFC 41(b); Motion to Reconsider Denied Signed by Judge Hewitt.

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/HEWITT.CANVS102512.pdf
10-540C CANVS CORPORATION V. THE UNITED STATES
Filed 10/25/2012

Patent Claim; Insufficiency of Claim Chart; No “Timely Showing of Good Cause”; Denying Motion to Amend Claim Chart; Denying Reconsideration Under Rule 54(b); Dismissal of Claims Under Rule 41(b) Signed by Judge Hewitt.

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/HEWITT.CANVS072312.pdf
10-540C CANVS CORPORATION V. THE UNITED STATES
Filed 07/23/2012

Insufficiency of Claim Construction Chart and Claim Construction Statement; Order for Briefing on Amendment of a Claim Chart; Order for Briefing on “a Timely Showing of Good Cause”; Order for Revised Expert Report and Claim Construction Statement Signed by Judge Hewitt.

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/HEWITT.CANVS042312.pdf
10-540C CANVS CORPORATION V. THE UNITED STATES
Filed 04/23/2012

Availability of Sanctions Under RCFC 16(f); Untimely Filings Under the Court’s Rules and Orders; Expense Shifting Under RCFC 37(a)(5); Government Entitled to Reasonable Expenses Including Attorney’s Fees Signed by Judge Hewitt.

---

I must say for the record, if one were to draw any conclusions based only on these documents, ones opinion of the goings on in this case would be so severely warped as to render any truth contained in these documents as completely irrelevant.

I guess the only way that this story is going to be told is for me to submit the Book and Movie Script to be cleared for public release.