A RICH tradition in litigation

RECENT DECISIONS

CANVS v US

14 Million Dollar Judgment

September 9, 2016

On September 9, 2016, The United States Court of Federal Claims entered judgement in favor of CANVS Corporation, for $14,000,000 for infringement of US Patent 6,911,652.

CANVS was represented by the law firm of DNL ZITO.   Jon Walkenstein, President of CANVS, is a pioneer in sensor fusion and color night vision technology. Mr. Walkenstein's background in Experimental Physics combined with is service as a US Army Aviation Warrant Officer, afforded him the tools and perspective necessary to identify and address unfulfilled operational needs within the night vision community.

Driven by the goal of providing US troops with better equipment, Walkenstein founded CANVS in February of 1998. CANVS became well known for combining thermal and intensified imaging and for the development of color night vision systems in a way that solved both engineering and production issues while simultaneously addressing the operational needs of end users. Mr. Walkenstein has made immeasurable contributions to the effectiveness of the US military, earning the respect of servicemen, engineers and officers within the night vision community. According to US Government personnel tasked with overseeing the US military's night vision uperiority, Mr. Walkenstein's efforts were a "success story" because Mr. Walkenstein actually achieved fusion.

"Mr. Walkenstein delivered what we were looking for and what he assessed that performance to be. . . and they a gave us capability to do things that I knew we were not capable of before."

Mr. Walkenstein, at the conclusion of this decade long conflict, stated that "My search to find someone with the necessary technical literacy, a functional moral compass, amazing legal skills, and the courage to represent CANVS invariably led me to Mr. Zito. Given who our opponents were, without the skill and perseverance of Mr. Zito I believe that CANVS would have been hard pressed to achieve any measure of compensation." Mr. Walkenstein added that "CANVS remains committed to developing and fielding of next generation tactical overmatch capabilities that increase the effectiveness and safety of our men and women in uniform."

Mr. Zito commented that he "continues to believe in the value of a strong patent system, and will continue to stand with patent owners to preserve the strength and integrity of that system."

PUBISHED DECISIONS

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 786 F.3d 892 (CAFC 2015)

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. King Pharma, Inc., 981 F. Supp.2d 415; (D. MD 2013)

Orenshteyn v. Citrix Sys., 691 F.3d 1356 (CAFC 2012)

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen, GSK & Merck , 659 F.3d 1057 (CAFC 2011)

Better Bags v. Redi Bag, 2011 WL 5509493 (S.D. Texas 2011)

Better Bags v. Continental, 2011 WL 2014551 (S.D. Texas 2011)

Better Bags v. Redi Bag, 2011 WL 240408 (S.D. Texas 2011)

Better Bags v. Redi Bag, 2010 WL 730331 (S.D. Texas 2010)

Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen & GSK, 561 U.S. 1040 (US Supreme Court 2010)

Zenith Products v. Design Home Solutions, 2010 WL 2136569 (E.D. PA 2010)

Better Bags v. Redi Bag, 2010 WL 730331 (S.D. Texas 2010)

Contech v. BaySaver, 310 Fed.Appx. 404 (CAFC 2009).

Harvey v. APPLE 2009 WL 7233530 (E.D. Texas 2009)

Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen, GSK & Merck 304 Fed.Appx. 866 (CAFC 2009)

AFMC v. DPSI & IBM 2009 WL 2940163 (2009)

Will-Burn Recording v. Universal Records & Warner/Chappell Music, 2009 WL 211082

(S.D. AL 2009)

Will-Burn Recording v. Universal Records & Warner/Chappell Music, 2009 WL 2096014

(S.D. AL 2009)

Robert E. Green v. Conagra Foods, 2009 WL 82370 (D. NE 2009)

Will-Burn Recording v. Universal Records & Warner/Chappell Music, 2008 WL 4793291

(S.D. AL 2008)

Contech v. BaySaver, 534 F. Supp 2d. 616 (D.MD 2008).

Tse, v. Apple Computer et al. 2007 WL 2904279 (N.D. CA 2007)

Contech, Inc., v. BaySaver, Inc. 2007 WL 2872074 (D.MD 2007)

Kernius v. Int'l Elecs., Inc., 2007 WL 1040571 (D.MD 2007)

Tse v. Apple Computer, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68451 (D. MD. 2006)

Kernius v. Int'l Elecs., Inc., 433 F. Supp. 2d 621; (D.MD 2006)

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. King Pharms., Inc., 466 F. Supp. 2d 621 (D. MD. 2006)

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 10809 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec, 2006 WL 6161856 (D.MD 2006)

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. King Pharms., Inc., 178 Fed. Appx. 13 (Fed. Cir., 2006)

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. King Pharms., Inc., 466 F. Supp. 2d 621 (D.MD. 2006)

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. King Pharms., Inc., 403 F. Supp. 2d 451 (D. MD. 2006)

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec, 381 F. Supp. 2d 452; (D.MD, 2005)

In Re. Certain Plastic Grocery Bags (International Trade Commission 2005)

Mylan Pharms., Inc. v. Kremers Urban Dev. Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 391 (D.Del. 2004)

Rose v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 307; (U.S. Ct. Fed. Claims 2003)

Hamilton v. ComWeb Technology, 2003 WL 25783116 (D. MD 2003)

Waymark Corp. v. Porta Sys. Corp., 334 F.3d 1358; 67 U.S.P.Q.2D 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

Waymark Corp. v. Porta Sys. Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26533, (S.D.FL. 2002)

Waymark Corp. v. Porta Sys. Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26526, (S.D. FL. 2002)

Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc. 295 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

Waymark Corp. v. Porta Sys. Corp., 245 F.3d 1364; 58 U.S.P.Q.2D 1456 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

Spectrum Creations, Inc. v. Catalina Lighting, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11861, (W.D.

TX. 2001)

Ambu, Inc. v. Kohlbrat & Bunz Corp., 53 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1414, (W.D. NC. 2000)

Waymark Corp. v. Porta Sys. Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22462, (S.D. FL. 2000)

Eastern Am. Trio Prods. v. Tang Elec. Corp., 97 F. Supp. 2d 395; 54 U.S.P.Q.2D 1776,

(S.D.N.Y. 2000)

Lamps Plus Inc. v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 57 U.S.P.Q.2D 1311, (C.D. CA. 1999)

Holmes Prods. Corp. v. Catalina Lighting, Inc., 67 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D. Mass. 1999)

Bazz, Inc. v. Catalina Lighting, Inc., 49 U.S.P.Q.2D 2009, (S.D.FL. 1998)

Black & Decker v. Catalina Lighting, 42 USPQ 1254, (E.D. VA. 1997)

Thomas Am. Corp. v. Fitzgerald, 968 F. Supp. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

Modine Mfg. Co. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 75 F.3d 1545; 37 U.S.P.Q.2D 1609

(Fed. Cir. 1996)

Black & Decker v. GSL Eng'g, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21566, (E.D. VA. 1996)

Tsakanikas Global Techs. v. Uniden Am. Corp., 39 U.S.P.Q.2D 1795, (D. MD. 1996)

Black & Decker v. Catalina Lighting, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20920, (E.D. VA 1996)

Black & Decker v. GSL Engineering, 41 USPQ 1377, (E.D. VA 1996)

AutoScribe Corp. v. Goldman & Steinberg, 33 U.S.P.Q.2D 1758; 47 F.3d 1164 (C.A. 4th Cir.

1994)

Laerdal Medical Corp. v. Ambu, Inc., 877 F. Supp. 255 (D. Md. 1995)

In the Matter of Certain Condensers, Parts Thereof and Products Containing Same,

Including Air Conditioners for Automobiles Investigation No. 337-TA-334, 1994 ITC LEXIS

733, USITC Publication 2731, United States International Trade Commission, February 1994

United States Supreme Court

Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen & GSK, 561 U.S. 1040 (US Supreme Court 2010) 

Court of Appeal Federal Cricuit

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 786 F.3d 892 (CAFC 2015)

Orenshteyn v. Citrix Sys., 691 F.3d 1356 (CAFC 2012)

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen, GSK & Merck , 659 F.3d 1057 (CAFC 2011)

Contech v. BaySaver, 310 Fed.Appx. 404 (CAFC 2009).

Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen, GSK & Merck 304 Fed.Appx. 866 (CAFC 2009)

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 10809 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. King Pharms., Inc., 178 Fed. Appx. 13 (Fed. Cir., 2006)

Rose v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 307; (U.S. Ct. Fed. Claims 2003)

Waymark Corp. v. Porta Sys. Corp., 334 F.3d 1358; 67 U.S.P.Q.2D 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc. 295 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

Waymark Corp. v. Porta Sys. Corp., 245 F.3d 1364; 58 U.S.P.Q.2D 1456 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

Modine Mfg. Co. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 75 F.3d 1545; 37 U.S.P.Q.2D 1609

(Fed. Cir. 1996)

US Court of Federal Claims

Rose v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 307; (U.S. Ct. Fed. Claims 2003)


International Trade Commission

Modine Mfg. Co. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 75 F.3d 1545; 37 U.S.P.Q.2D 1609

(Fed. Cir. 1996)

In the Matter of Certain Condensers, Parts Thereof and Products Containing Same,

Including Air Conditioners for Automobiles Investigation No. 337-TA-334, 1994 ITC LEXIS

733, USITC Publication 2731, United States International Trade Commission, February 1994