THE AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
What It Contains, What It Doesn't, and Why That Wins the Case
Prepared April 9, 2026 — Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025
The Bottom Line: The Amendment to Agreement (May 7, 2017) — signed by Goldberg himself — transfers the firm's infrastructure to NGM but contains zero provisions authorizing use of your personal name on patents, trademarks, or client communications. It is the strongest single piece of evidence destroying the consent defense.
1. What the Amendment Transfers to NGM
You assigned all right, title, and interest in the following to NGM:
| Asset | Details |
|---|
| Litman Law Offices, Ltd. (LLO) stock | 100% ownership transferred |
| Telephone numbers | 1-800-PATENT, 1-888-4-PATENT, 703-486-1000, 703-486-7000, KSA, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE numbers |
| ~25 domain names | 4patent.com, LitmanLaw.com, LitmanLawOffices.com, GCCpatentservices.com, 4inventor.com, Forpatent.com, and many more |
| Online groups | GAIN (Global Academic Innovation Network), MENA (Middle East North Africa) |
| Freedom Bank accounts | 220001002 and 220001028 |
| USPTO Customer Numbers | 24396 (Nicola Pizza trademark correspondence — 9 registrations, filings under Litman's name as late as July 2, 2025) and 37833 (general patent correspondence — 905+ patents) |
What you kept: A perpetual, royalty-free license to use two specific email addresses: litman@4patent.com and rlitman@litmanlaw.com. This is in writing, signed by Goldberg.
2. What the Amendment Does NOT Contain
This is the most important part. The Amendment is completely silent on:
- No authorization for NGM to use "Richard C. Litman" as attorney of record on new patent filings
- No consent clause for use of your personal name on any document
- No mention of Powers of Attorney or who gets listed as attorney on USPTO filings
- No mention of your name on patent Line 74, trademark dockets, or client correspondence
- No license to your personal identity, reputation, or professional goodwill (beyond the two email addresses)
You transferred the infrastructure — the phone numbers, the domains, the customer numbers, the bank accounts. You did not transfer a license to your name, your identity, or your professional reputation.
Goldberg admitted this himself (April 22, 2021 email): "the Agreement does not mention the trademark rights, just the 4patent URLs, technically creating a situation where you own the trademarks and NGM owns the URLs." — If the Agreement doesn't even cover trademarks, it certainly doesn't cover personal name use on 905 patents.
3. The "Entire Agreement" Clause Seals It
Paragraph 6 states: "Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect."
This means the Amendment + the original Combination Agreement (March 29, 2017) are the complete universe of written authority between the parties. There is no side agreement. There is no oral understanding. There is no implied license. If consent for name use existed, it would be in one of these two documents. It is in neither.
4. The Perpetual Email License — Goldberg Breached It
| Date | Event | Significance |
|---|
| May 7, 2017 | Amendment signed — you receive perpetual royalty-free license to litman@4patent.com | CONTRACT Written right, signed by Goldberg |
| Jul 17, 2025 | You tell Goldberg: "I am not waiting and will get a litigator" | Litigation threat |
| Jul 18, 2025 | Your email accounts eliminated (litman@4patent.com + NathLaw) | BREACH Violates the perpetual license |
| Jul 18, 4:30 PM | Goldberg texts: "It should be. Let me find out from IT what happened" | ADMISSION He acknowledged it |
| Jul 21, 2025 | You text: "Any update on email accounts?" — no reply | Never restored |
| Sep 2, 2025 | "Joshua Goldberg" registers at litman@4patent.com on OpenGov | SEIZURE Account not deleted — seized |
| Mar 17, 2026 | Gould claims access was "never revoked" | FALSE See below |
| Mar 18, 2026 | You reply: "I can't really send or receive email to litman@4patent.com" | Contemporaneous rebuttal |
The breach is clear: The Amendment gives you a perpetual, royalty-free license to litman@4patent.com. On July 18, 2025 — one day after your litigation threat — Goldberg eliminated your access. He acknowledged it by text. He never restored it. Then he used your email address for his own OpenGov registration. His lawyer later claimed access was "never revoked" — while you couldn't log in.
5. Gould's "Never Revoked" Claim — The Evidence Says Otherwise
On March 17, 2026, Goldberg's lawyer Aaron Gould wrote:
"I note that your access to your two NGM e-mail accounts has never been revoked and you have been able to access these e-mails at all relevant times. Both accounts are accessible by signing in to the 4Patent e-mail account."
Here is what the evidence actually shows:
| Gould's Claim | The Evidence |
|---|
| "Access has never been revoked" |
Your July 18 text: "My personal emails have been eliminated."
Goldberg's reply: "Let me find out from IT what happened."
Your March 18 reply to Gould: "I can't really send an email or receive an email." |
| "You have been able to access these e-mails at all relevant times" |
Aug 20, 2025: USPTO sent official notice to rlitman@nathlaw.com — you couldn't read it (33 days after elimination)
Aug 26, 2025: More USPTO trademark notifications to rlitman@nathlaw.com — still couldn't read them |
| "Both accounts are accessible by signing in to the 4Patent e-mail account" |
Sept 2, 2025: Goldberg signed into litman@4patent.com to register on OpenGov — proving he had the password, not you |
Who is lying? Gould is making a technically evasive but substantively false statement. The accounts may still exist in the M365 directory (not "deleted"), but your credentials were changed on July 18. The functional equivalent of revocation. Goldberg acknowledged it himself. His lawyer's later denial is contradicted by Goldberg's own text messages.
6. The Amendment on NYSCEF — Goldberg's Own Mistake
Goldberg's lawyer filed an Order to Show Cause asking why the Amendment should be kept confidential. He then withdrew the OTC — but did not withdraw the exhibits.
Result: The Amendment to Agreement is now sitting on the public NYSCEF docket as an exhibit to a withdrawn motion. Goldberg tried to seal it and failed. The document that proves zero consent for name use is now a public court record — put there by his own lawyer.
The fact that Goldberg tried to seal it proves he knew the Amendment was damaging. If it contained consent for name use, he would have wanted it public. The attempt to hide it is consciousness of guilt.
7. The Revenue Definition — Destroys the Offset Theory
Paragraph 1 defines "Revenue" as:
(i) money paid; (ii) the monetary value of any set-off of fees owed to NGM for a particular matter by a foreign associate against fees owed by NGM to a foreign associate for other matters; or (iii) other, similar bartering or non-cash income in each case excluding fees and disbursement advanced by NGM.
The only permitted deduction is "fees and disbursement advanced by NGM" — meaning actual out-of-pocket costs NGM paid (USPTO filing fees, foreign associate fees). That's it.
What Merritt Green argued in December 2022: NGM could stay "underwater" indefinitely by subtracting all outstanding client receivables before paying you. This has no basis in the contract. The Revenue definition permits subtracting only disbursements actually advanced — not unpaid invoices, not projected future costs, not general firm overhead. Your lawyer Scully was right: the $694K calculation was "concocted by guesswork."
8. The 20% Post-Termination Payment — 5 Years, In Writing
Paragraph 1:
"Upon termination of the Agreement, LITMAN or his estate shall be paid deferred monetary compensation equal to twenty percent (20%) of the Revenue... from billings for services rendered to LITMAN Originated Clients during the five (5) year period immediately following the termination of this Agreement, which such five (5) year period can optionally be extended by one or two years upon the mutual agreement of all parties."
| Date | Significance |
|---|
| June 15, 2020 | Termination date (set by arbitration) |
| June 15, 2025 | End of base 5-year window |
| June 15, 2026 | End of 1-year extension (if mutual) |
| June 15, 2027 | End of 2-year extension (if mutual) |
Key point for enforcement: The arbitration award says 20% of something — and this is the "something." The Amendment makes the 20% post-termination payment a contractual obligation, not a discretionary courtesy. Goldberg's failure to pay is a breach of the written agreement he signed. The reason for termination (disability) doesn't matter for enforcement purposes.
9. CN-37833 & CN-24396 — Infrastructure Transferred, Identity Not Licensed
You transferred two USPTO Customer Numbers to NGM:
- CN-37833 — general patent correspondence routing (905+ patents)
- CN-24396 — Nicola Pizza trademark correspondence routing (9 registrations, filings under your name as late as July 2, 2025). (Identified as Nicola Pizza by Richard Litman, April 10, 2026.)
But:
- The Amendment says nothing about who gets listed as attorney of record on filings made through either customer number
- Transferring the customer number is like transferring a phone number — you gave them the line, not the right to answer it using your name
- Goldberg used CN-37833 to file 16 Powers of Attorney listing your name after termination — the Amendment did not authorize this
- Goldberg used CN-24396 to file trademark declarations under your name as late as July 2, 2025 — the Amendment did not authorize this either
- As of April 2026, nobody has revoked your connection to CN-37833 — your name is still the correspondence address on pending applications
- Both customer numbers were transferred as administrative routing infrastructure — neither grants a personal name license
10. Summary — What the Amendment Proves
| Question | Answer | Evidence |
|---|
| Did you consent to post-termination name use? |
NO |
Amendment contains zero name-use provisions; "entire agreement" clause means nothing exists outside these documents |
| Did you have a right to litman@4patent.com? |
YES |
Perpetual royalty-free license, Para. 3(h), signed by Goldberg |
| Was the email elimination a breach? |
YES |
License is perpetual; eliminated Jul 18, 2025; never restored; Goldberg acknowledged it |
| Does the offset theory hold up? |
NO |
Revenue definition permits only "fees and disbursement advanced" deductions — not receivables |
| Is the 20% post-termination in writing? |
YES |
Para. 1: 20% for 5 years post-termination, extendable to 7 |
| Did CN-37833 or CN-24396 transfer include a name license? |
NO |
Amendment transfers infrastructure only; zero mention of attorney-of-record designations. CN-24396 = Nicola Pizza (9 trademark registrations, filings under Litman's name as late as July 2, 2025) |
| Did Goldberg know this was damaging? |
YES |
Tried to seal it via Order to Show Cause; withdrew OTC but left exhibits on NYSCEF |
| Did Goldberg admit the limits? |
YES |
April 22, 2021: "the Agreement does not mention the trademark rights, just the 4patent URLs" |
This document is the foundation of the entire case. It proves the 20% obligation, defines the only permitted deductions, grants the perpetual email license that was breached, transfers CN-37833 without a name-use license, and — through its silence on personal name use — destroys every version of the consent defense. Goldberg signed it. His own lawyer put it on the public court record. And his April 2021 email admits it doesn't cover what he's been doing for the past five years.