Dear Mr. Wells: Can I borrow your Time Machine?

My patent infringement case against the US Government (CANVS V USA) was filed on 11AUG10. The court order allowing the Government to stay discovery will finally be lifted on 28APR14. 1,356 days after filing!

For the last 3 years, 8 months, and 17 days the Government has gotten away with not having to produce ANY evidence I have asked for.

During this same time period I have produced over 170,000 hard copy pages and OVER 1,000,000 soft copy documents (not pages, documents). If this seems a bit one sided, IT IS!

My real job description for the last decade has been "STAY CALM". You had better believe you me, it's not been easy, and it's a full time job!

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.

CANVS V The Commercial Infringers.

Now that it is in the public domain, I can share with you the first of a series of actions by CANVS against the commercial infringers of CANVS' US Patent 6,911,652 filed in the Middle District of Florida:

---

https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/casefilings/latestcv.html

---

Case Number 2:14-cv-00100-JES-CM
CANVS Corporation
v.
EXELIS, Inc. et al
Judge Steele
Filed on 02/19/2014

---

Case Number 2:14-cv-00099-SPC-DNF
CANVS Corporation
v.
Nivisys, LLC
Judge Chappell
Filed on 02/19/2014

Correction from CANVS for law360.com

A web page with the URL http://www.law360.com ran a story reference CANVS V USA:

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

Earlier today I sent their editor the following correction along with commentary from our Attorney:

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."

We shall see if they run my corrections and comments...

Order #81

As you know if you have been following this blog, CANVS V USA was filed in the Court of Federal Claims on 11AUG10. On 18SEP13 oral arguments were heard by the Honorable Chief Justice Emily C. Hewitt. If you are interested in hearing the almost two hour long audio transcript it can be found at the bottom of the page at this URL:

http://www.canvs.com/CANVS-V-USA/CANVS-V-USA.htm

Specifically: USCFC-18SEP13.mp3

The decision (which was rendered by the new Chief Justice of The Court of Federal Claims, The Honorable Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith) can also be downloaded at the above URL (Order81.pdf). In case you do not want your eyes to bleed as a result of reading the 22 pages in its entirety, the image above is the conclusion with the important bits outlined in red.

UNCLASSIFIED TOP TEN LIST

Thanks to the Re-Issued April 16, 2013 Motion to Reconsider Order of Dismissal of Patent Claims for Failure to Prosecute document posted by The US Court of Federal Claims (reference Case Number 10-540C, CANVS V USA) I am proud to present the Top Ten US Government Programs that are named as potentially Infringing on my patent in CANVS V USA:

Just as a refresher, my patent deals with "sensor fusion", in the context of the devices in question they combine night vision (the green image intensifier imagery that amplifies visible and near infrared light in the scene, like from the scene in Silence of The Lambs) and Thermal or Forward Looking InfraRed (FLIR) night vision that is actually an image that shows the temperature of the objects in the scene, like in the scene at the precious metals depository heist in the movie Heat when Robert DeNiro's character, Neil McCauley, walks out front and hides in a dark corner and the technician in the SWAT van with Al Pacino's character, Lt. Vincent Hanna, switches to thermal to see McCauley standing in the shadows). Note that other technologies are also included because of the claim language ("enhanced photon based" and "thermal" imaging devices)

Here is a link to a video sequence the Army published that will get you up to speed:

http://vimeo.com/4532787

Number 10: DENVG [The Digital Enhanced Night Vision Goggle]
Number 9: FWS [The Fused Multi-Spectral Weapon Sight]
Number 8: FFW [The Future Force Warrior Weapon Sight Program]
Number 7: DVE [Drivers Viewer Enhancer, Sensor Fused Variant]
Number 6: GMS2 [The Gunship Multi-Spectral Sensor System]
Number 5: TSS [The AH-1Z Target Sight System]
Number 4: Pathfinder [Multi-Platform Sensor Fusion Electro-Optical Payload]
Number 3: Arrowhead Upgrade Program [AH-64 Sensor Fusion Electro-Optical Payload Upgrade]
Number 2: DUNS [The Dual Band Universal Night Sight]
And the Number 1 System is: ENVG [The Enhanced Night Vision Goggle]

If you are wondering how much money this involves, I can tell you that ENVG and DUNS alone are already well on their way to $6 Billion worth of expenditures.

The technical and patent law aspects of this case alone should be more than sufficient for CANVS to prevail. If one considers the history as well (including over 170,000 pages of hard copy evidence not counting video and soft copy historical documentation) the story is almost unbelievable (and I lived it). This is not a case of an inventor who was sitting in a room with no windows who got a US Patent and just waited for the Government to infringe, not by a long shot. Just to give you an idea of how many different components of the US Government I have been working with over the years, here is a short list from a document I created for Donald Rumsfeld after 9/11 that only covers the first few years of briefings and demonstrations (keep in mind I have been at this since 1996, and just think of how much rest stop vending machine snacks and airline peanuts I must have consumed!)

U.S. Military, Intelligence, and Law Enforcement Briefings & Demonstrations:

U.S. Army:

• U.S. Army Special Operations Aviation Regiment
• Commander Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (COL Waldo Carmona)
• Company A, 1st Battalion 20th Special Forces Group
• Defense Combat Development Air Maneuver Battlespace Battle Laboratory
• Commander U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory
• Warrant Officer Career Center
• Army Institute for Surgical Research Fort Sam Houston
• Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner Fort Campbell Kentucky
• Night Vision and Electronics Sensors Directorate (Brigadier General Jeffery Sorenson, Col. J. Kelly)
• Two Directors of The Communications-Electronics Command (Dr. Rudy Boozer, Dr. Fenner Milton)
• Dismounted Battlespace Battle Laboratory
• Joint Precision Strike Demonstration Office (Mr. Terry L. Jones, Sensors Director SFAE-IEW&S-JP)
• Army Research Office, Washington D.C. (Maj. Lyndon Wrighten)
• Army Material Command HQ (Major General Snyder)
• Picatinny Arsenal (Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System team)
• Aberdeen Proving Grounds (Mrs. Grayson CuQlock-Knopp)
• Army Physical Security (LTC Michael E. Bonheim, Program Manager)

U.S. Marine Corps:

• U.S. Marine Corps War Fighting Laboratory (Mr. Joe Thompson)
• U.S. Marine Corps Night Vision Laboratory
• U.S. Marine Corps System Command

U.S. Navy:

• Naval Research Laboratory
• Program Director Night Vision and Electro-Optics/Optics Naval Special Warfare Development Group
• U.S. Navy Special Warfare Command Headquarters
• U.S. Navy Special Warfare Group One
• U.S. Navy Special Warfare Group Two
• Explosives Safety Officer Night Vision, and Weapons Program Manager U.S. Navy Special Warfare Group One
• Naval Tactical Air Command
• U.S. Navy Sea Systems Command, Landing Craft Air Cushioned Office
• Naval Air Technical Data and Engineering Service Command (NATEC)
• U.S. Navy, Crane Indiana
• U.S. Navy PAX River, Electro-Optics Payload Division

U.S. Air Force:

• Commander U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (COL Bill Berkley)
• Wright Patterson Air Force Night Vision Operations Branch (Mr. Jeff Craig)
• U.S. Air Force Trial Judiciary Eastern Circuit

U.S. Coast Guard:

• U.S. Coast Guard Base Miami Beach
• Opalocka Air Station

Joint Service:

• U.S. Special Operations Command Headquarters
• SOPMOD Working Group
• All Service Combat Identification and Evaluation Team
• Joint Special Operations Night Vision and Electro-Optics Working Group
• Unmanned Ground Vehicles/ Systems Joint Project Office
• JUXOCOE (Joint Unexploded Ordnance Center of Excellence)
• Biometrics Security Office
• LTC Peter S. Janker, Deputy Director, DoD Biometrics for Operations

DARPA

• Dr. Arthur Moorish Acting Director Advanced Technology Office, Currently Acting Deputy Director Tactical Technology Office.
• Dr. William Jeffery Deputy Director Advanced Technology Office.
• LTC John Blitch Program Manager Advanced Technology Office.
• Raymond S. Balcerak Program Manager Microsystems Technology Office.
• Dr. Parney Albright Program Manager Advanced Technology Office.

U.S. Intelligence Agencies:

• Central Intelligence Agency (Executive Director, and Office of Science and Technology)
• The Federal Bureau of Investigation (Hostage Rescue Team)
• U.S. Department Of The Treasury (U.S. Customs Service)
• U.S. Department of Energy (Special Technologies Laboratory)

U.S. Law Enforcement:

• Deputy Director U.S. Marshals
• Executive Office of the President of the United States: Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center
• The Drug Enforcement Agency
• Airborne Law Enforcement Association
• The Coral Gables Special Weapons and Tactics Team
• The Metro-Dade County Special Weapons and Tactics Team
• The Miami Marine Patrol Special Weapons and Tactics Team
• St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Special Assistant to the Chief of Police
• President of The National Technical Investigators Association
• Captain Pima County Sheriff’s Department, Tucson Arizona

I will share with you a joke that I told at a briefing a long time ago (somehow it seems appropriate at this point in time). I was asked by a member of the audience, "Just how busy are you really?", I said, "If I told you, someone else would have to kill you...". There was an awkward silence for about three seconds (seemed like a life time as I stood at the podium) and then the entire room busted out in laughter and a standing ovation!

I can hardly wait to bring you up to speed on our other Federal Case, CANVS V SOCOM, that is my case involving CANVS Color Night Vision systems (Goggles and Video Systems) currently in front of the fine folks at this institution: http://www.asbca.mil. In theory we have a court date of 15NOV13 as of now depending on how loud they cry to the Judge about the shutdown and that the dog ate their homework!

If you can't wait check out the famous Green vs CANVS Color Night Vision Cigar Video:

http://www.canvs.com/CANVS-cigar.wmv

I can't tell you how many time I have had a laugh after reading what folks in chat rooms have said, claiming the video is rigged, just goes to show that one of the most dangerous things is that "you don't know what you don't know"! US Special Operations has had CANVS Color Night Vision Goggles in the field for over a decade at this point.

One last parting thought for this entry, it is really a severe condemnation of "The Media" that no one has chosen to run this story yet. I will have to tell you the story of my meetings with the President of CNN, and one of the VP's of FOX News, another time perhaps...