Not all of your summary is correct:

In Java methods are virtual by default but you can make them final. (In C# they're sealed by default, but you can make them virtual.)
There are plenty of IDEs for Java, both free (e.g. Eclipse, Netbeans) and commercial (e.g. IntelliJ IDEA)
Beyond that (and what's in your summary already):

Generics are completely different between the two; Java generics are just a compile-time "trick" (but a useful one at that). In C# and .NET generics are maintained at execution time too, and work for value types as well as reference types, keeping the appropriate efficiency (e.g. a List<byte> as a byte[] backing it, rather than an array of boxed bytes.)
C# doesn't have checked exceptions
Java doesn't allow the creation of user-defined value types
Java doesn't have operator and conversion overloading
Java doesn't have iterator blocks for simple implemetation of iterators
Java doesn't have anything like LINQ
Partly due to not having delegates, Java doesn't have anything quite like anonymous methods and lambda expressions. Anonymous inner classes usually fill these roles, but clunkily.
Java doesn't have expression trees
C# doesn't have anonymous inner classes
C# doesn't have Java's inner classes at all, in fact - all nested classes in C# are like Java's static nested classes
Java doesn't have static classes (which don't have any instance constructors, and can't be used for variables, parameters etc)
Java doesn't have any equivalent to the C# 3.0 anonymous types
Java doesn't have implicitly typed local variables
Java doesn't have extension methods
Java doesn't have object and collection initializer expressions
The access modifiers are somewhat different - in Java there's (currently) no direct equivalent of an assembly, so no idea of "internal" visibility; in C# there's no equivalent to the "default" visibility in Java which takes account of namespace (and inheritance)
The order of initialization in Java and C# is subtly different (C# executes variable initializers before the chained call to the base type's constructor)
Java doesn't have an equivalent of the using statement for simplified try/finally handling of resources
Java doesn't have properties as part of the language; they're a convention of get/set/is methods
Java doesn't have the equivalent of "unsafe" code
Interop is easier in C# (and .NET in general) than Java's JNI
Java and C# have somewhat different ideas of enums. Java's are much more object-oriented.
Java has no preprocessor directives (#define, #if etc in C#).
Java has no equivalent of C#'s ref and out for passing parameters by reference
Java has no equivalent of partial types
C# interfaces cannot declare fields
Java has no unsigned integer types
Java has no language support for a decimal type. (java.math.BigDecimal provides something like System.Decimal - with differences - but there's no language support)
Java has no equivalent of nullable value types
Boxing in Java uses predefined (but "normal") reference types with particular operations on them. Boxing in C# and .NET is a more transparent affair, with a reference type being created for boxing by the CLR for any value type.
This is not exhaustive, but it covers everything I can think of off-hand.