Goldberg did not merely use Litman's name without consent. He engineered the conditions under which Litman could not object. By controlling Litman's health insurance, Goldberg created a dependency that made resistance dangerous — then exploited that dependency to continue using Litman's name on 905 patents, extracting millions in fees from clients Litman originated.
When Litman attempted to assert independence or raise concerns, Goldberg responded with threats to cut off insurance coverage — coverage that cost $2,867 per month through COBRA and that Litman, a disabled person, could not independently obtain. Meanwhile, Goldberg simultaneously insisted Litman was "terminated" from the firm while demanding he use his personal relationships to collect $2.1M+ from King Saud University.
The text messages the defense relies upon — cited as evidence of "consent" — are independently worthless for three reasons: settlement privilege, absence of any meeting of the minds, and the written amendment requirement in the Combination Agreement.
Across 18 email threads spanning five years, Goldberg's treatment of Litman's health insurance follows a clear escalation pattern. He knew Litman was disabled and dependent on firm-provided insurance. He tied that insurance to Litman's "status" at the firm — the same status that put Litman's name on 905 patents. Then he wielded it as a weapon.
The insurance timeline transforms this case from a commercial name-use dispute into a story of exploitation of a disabled person. Even if a jury were inclined to credit Goldberg's "consent" defense, the coercion pattern destroys any inference of voluntariness. You cannot obtain meaningful consent from someone whose survival depends on your discretion.
"Litman was terminated effective June 15, 2020. He had no role at the firm. The Combination Agreement was over."
— Arbitration testimony; BOP Response
"Please contact KSU and collect the $2.1M they owe us. Use your personal relationships. We need you to email the Rector directly."
— Emails, Oct 2020 through Jul 2023
The 874 KSU emails tell a story Goldberg cannot reconcile: he treated Litman as "terminated" when it served the consent defense, but treated him as an active, indispensable agent when he needed Litman's personal relationships to collect millions from a foreign university.
"Can you contact King Saud University regarding the outstanding balance? They owe approximately $2.1 million and have not responded to our recent invoices."
"The three-way collection strategy targets $2.26 million in outstanding KSU receivables. Litman's personal relationship with KSU leadership is identified as the key collection mechanism."
"Stan let me know that Merritt mentioned to him about me helping collect from KSU."
Litman leverages his personal relationships with KSU faculty and administrators — the same relationships built over decades of representing KSU through the firm — to press for payment.
Post-arbitration. The arbitrator has already found the Combination Agreement terminated as of June 15, 2020. Yet the KSU collection effort using Litman continues without pause.
"It was like I was dead."
At Goldberg's deposition (due by June 2, 2026), he must reconcile these positions: Either Litman was "terminated" (in which case, why was he collecting $2.1M for the firm?) or Litman remained associated with the firm (in which case, the "consent" defense requires proof of actual consent to specific acts — POA signatures, patent filings, Line 74 listings — which does not exist). There is no middle ground.
Goldberg's defense will point to text messages between himself and Litman as evidence of "consent" to name use. These texts are independently defeated by three separate legal doctrines — any one of which is sufficient.
The text messages occur in the context of ongoing disputes over compensation, insurance, and the terms of Litman's separation. Under New York law, communications made in connection with settlement negotiations are privileged and inadmissible to prove liability or consent.
The texts are shot through with negotiation language: "what would be considered legal vs. fraud," discussions of insurance continuation, and back-and-forth about Litman's title. This is settlement discourse, not consent.
Even reading every text in Litman's most unfavorable light, there is zero discussion of the specific acts that constitute the name misappropriation:
Litman discussed "Senior Counsel" title and website listing. He never discussed, nor was told about, the 16 POA signatures Goldberg personally executed.
The Combination Agreement — the only written contract between the parties — contains a written amendment clause. Any modification to the parties' rights (including consent to name use) must be in writing and signed by both parties.
Text messages are not a signed written amendment. Even if the texts could be read as "consent" (they cannot), they fail to meet the contractual requirements for modifying the agreement.
Each reason independently defeats the text message evidence. Together, they render it worthless three times over. At trial, these texts will be either excluded entirely (settlement privilege) or, if admitted, shown to prove the opposite of what the defense claims: that Litman never knew about or consented to the specific acts that constitute misappropriation.
The coercion evidence, combined with the KSU contradiction and text message neutralization, destroys the two defenses most likely to be raised at trial.
Litman was aware his name appeared on the website and patents and never objected. His silence constitutes consent.
Litman knew about "Senior Counsel" title only. He was never told about the 16 POA signatures, the filing receipts, or the mechanism that placed his name on 905 patents. You cannot consent to what you do not know about.
The text messages prove Litman wanted the association to continue.
The "association" Litman discussed was his title and insurance, not POA filings. And any text message "consent" was given under coercion — Litman could not object without losing his health insurance.
Litman's delay in objecting proves acquiescence.
Litman objected when he discovered the scope of the name use. Before that, he could not object to what he did not know about. After discovery, his objection was immediate — resulting in the January 2025 name switchover, which proves Goldberg had the ability to stop at any time.
Defense #8 requires voluntary, informed acquiescence. The evidence shows neither: Litman was uninformed about the mechanism (no consent) and coerced through insurance dependency (no voluntariness).
The Combination Agreement, as a whole, authorized the continued use of Litman's name in firm operations.
The Combination Agreement contains zero provisions regarding personal name use, consent, goodwill, or POA authorization. Every word has been read. The authorization does not exist.
Litman's role as "Senior Counsel" implies authorization for name use.
Goldberg's own Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821) states that Litman owns his name. The assignment document Goldberg himself signed contradicts the authorization claim.
The agreement was in effect during the period of name use.
Judicial estoppel. Goldberg argued in arbitration that the agreement terminated June 15, 2020. The arbitrator accepted this. Goldberg cannot now claim the same agreement authorized post-2020 name use. He won on "terminated"; he is bound by it.
Defense #10 requires a contract that authorizes the name use. No such provision exists. The BOP response admits the name use was "purely as a courtesy" — not contractual. And the agreement was terminated per Goldberg's own successful argument.
Coercion is not merely a defense to consent. It is affirmative evidence of willfulness that supports punitive damages. Goldberg did not accidentally use Litman's name — he created conditions ensuring Litman could not object, then exploited those conditions for commercial gain.
The insurance timeline proves Goldberg knew the name use was wrong (the "fraud" text), knew Litman could not meaningfully object (insurance dependency), and continued anyway for five years. This is the definition of willful misconduct under New York law.
Coercion of a disabled person through health insurance leverage — while simultaneously extracting millions in fees from clients originated by that person — is the kind of egregious conduct that warrants punitive damages. The ICU hospitalization gives a jury the emotional anchor.
The January 2025 name switchover proves Goldberg could have stopped at any time. He chose not to — for nearly five years. When he finally switched, it was not out of conscience but because the lawsuit made continued use untenable. This is consciousness of wrongdoing.
A disabled patent attorney's name was used on 905 patents without his knowledge of the mechanism. The person using it controlled the disabled man's health insurance. When the disabled man's survival depended on not rocking the boat, the name-user took that as "consent." When the truth came out, the name-user switched the name overnight — proving he could have stopped at any time. Five months after cutting off the insurance, the disabled man was in the ICU. That is the coercion story. It supports every dollar of punitive damages the jury wants to award.
On March 18, 2013 — just 6 months after Litman merged his practice into Becker & Poliakoff — Managing Shareholder Gary Rosen wrote an extraordinary email revealing that health insurance was already being used as an institutional lever.
"I don't want less benefits or less money than what I had... I need to get on a group that has this [health insurance]. It is not me vs. us. It is us."
"The health insurance issue does puzzle me a bit. The crux of it seems to come down to Restasis... it is a step down from the Mercedes plan you had for yourself."
"The ONLY reason you have now started to view [the holdback] that way is because you are starting to think about an exit. People who are here are going to get their money — period."
Source: evidence/apple_mail/BP_ROSEN_LITMAN_FOLLOWUP_6927.emlx — Apple Mail database, iCloud account rlitman@icloud.com
The "Official 30 day notice" email chain (May 2017) documents the exact moment when Litman's client files — and the associated name-use practices — transferred from Becker & Poliakoff to Nath, Goldberg & Meyer.
Source: evidence/apple_mail/BP_NGM_TRANSITION_30DAY_1287.emlx
In the first weeks of NGM's existence (May 2017), Joshua Goldberg was CC'd on substantive client communications alongside Richard Litman — proving he knew exactly which client relationships bore Litman's name.
"Cc: qf@4patent.com; Joshua Goldberg; Jerry Meyer; Richard Litman"
Source: evidence/apple_mail/GOLDBERG_CC_*.emlx
2,254 emails document James "Nick" Lafave (Reg. 71013) as the key operational link between Goldberg's POA signatures and Litman's name appearing on patents.
Source: evidence/apple_mail/LAFAVE_NATHLAW_*.emlx (20+ nathlaw.com era emails)
| Date | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 2012 | B&P merger; uncle's "Mercedes plan" downgraded | Apple Mail |
| Mar 2013 | "I need top health insurance" — Rosen: "step down from the Mercedes plan" | Apple Mail |
| Aug 2013 | Staff health insurance enrollment crisis at B&P | Apple Mail |
| Dec 2014 | "Individual Disability Policies" & "Disability Insurance Election Form" | Apple Mail |
| Nov 2015 | "Urgent: Health insurance problem" (8 emails); Professional Liability Insurance application | Apple Mail |
| Jun 2017 | "Health Insurance 2017-2018" (NGM era begins) | Apple Mail |
| 2020–2023 | Goldberg leverages health insurance over uncle (Cheryl's Crohn's, biological drugs) | Gmail archive |
| Jul 6, 2021 | Goldberg signs insurance application listing Litman as "Of Counsel" | Professional liability policy |
| Jan 2025 | Name switchover — Litman removed from patent Line 74 | USPTO XML |
| Mid-2025 | Insurance cut off → ICU hospitalization | Client testimony |
From 2012 through 2025, every firm Litman was part of controlled his health coverage and knew it was his pressure point. When Goldberg took control of NGM, he did not discover a new vulnerability — he inherited one that had been documented for seven years. The "Mercedes plan" email proves the pattern; Cheryl's Crohn's diagnosis made the leverage lethal.
449 emails exported from Apple Mail archive to evidence/apple_mail/. Categories: insurance (71), disability (51), professional liability (29), Lafave (20+), Goldberg CCs (3), transition docs (1), KSU collection (12), SACGC (4), solicitation/referral (20+), nathlaw.com era (102).