Preliminary Statement

1. This action arises from Defendant Joshua B. Goldberg's unauthorized commercial use of Plaintiff Richard C. Litman's name, professional identity, and reputation in violation of New York Civil Rights Law Sections 50 and 51. Plaintiff has identified four distinct categories of unauthorized name use, each constituting separate publications under Sections 50-51, totaling approximately 36,500 acts during the actionable period (June 15, 2020 through the present).

2. Only Count V of the Complaint survives, per the Hon. Judge Maslow's oral decision on December 5, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc #60), which dismissed Counts I-IV while sustaining the Section 51 misappropriation claim.

3. Defendant has admitted the core factual predicate for this claim. In his Verified Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65, Paragraph 32), Defendant admits "that Plaintiff's name appeared on the front page of patents issued to Plaintiff's originated clients after June 15, 2020, and that Plaintiff's name and biography appeared on NGM's website after June 15, 2020." Defendant repeats this admission at Paragraph 72 of the Answer, under Count V specifically.

I. The Nature and Extent of Plaintiff's Injuries

4. Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, the following injuries as a result of Defendant's unauthorized commercial use of his name:

II. The Specific Acts of Unauthorized Name Use

A. Category 1: USPTO Issued Patents and Prosecution Documents

5. Defendant caused Plaintiff's name to appear as the attorney of record on 905 United States patents issued since June 15, 2020. A complete list is set forth in Exhibit A (905-Patent List).

6. Additionally, across 21 fully mapped patent applications, Defendant caused Plaintiff's name to appear on 206 outgoing USPTO documents, including Filing Receipts, Office Actions, Notices of Allowance, Issue Notifications, and related prosecution correspondence. Each such document is a separate government record bearing Plaintiff's name as the responsible attorney. See Exhibit B (Mechanism of Liability Documentation).

7. The mechanism by which Defendant caused these publications is as follows: Defendant personally signed PTO/AIA/82A Power of Attorney transmittals designating Customer Number 37833 (Nath, Goldberg & Meyer) as the correspondence address while keeping Plaintiff's name as the attorney of record. Defendant signed 16 such POAs personally, using his USPTO registration number (Reg. No. 44126). All 16 were signed after June 15, 2020, and 14 were signed after the June 14, 2023 arbitration decision. See Exhibit C (POA Signature Table).

8. The 16 Goldberg-signed POAs, with dates and corresponding patents, include:

B. Category 2: Client-Facing Publications

10. Martha Long, a paralegal at NGM acting under Defendant's direction and supervision, sent approximately 24,526 emails to clients attaching USPTO documents that listed "Richard C. Litman" as the attorney of record. Each such email constituted a separate client-facing publication of Plaintiff's name for commercial purposes. See Exhibit D (Client-Facing Publication Exhibit).

11. The client-facing publications include emails to, among others:

• King Faisal University (KFU) at kfu@4patent.com -- 19,701 emails (Source: EMAIL_METADATA_ND0001.csv + EMAIL_METADATA_ND0002.csv; any-field count of From/To/CC mentioning kfu@4patent.com.)
• Sabah Al-Ahmad Center for Giftedness and Creativity (SACGC)
• Kuwait University
• King Saud University (KSU)
• Qatar Foundation
• United Arab Emirates University (UAEU)

12. Representative post-July 21, 2024 client-facing publications include:

• July 3, 2025: Issue Notification for KFU, Docket 33140.97YY
• June 24, 2025: Notice of Allowance for KFU, Docket 33190.19U
• May 9, 2025: Office Action Notification for KFU, Docket 33190.19U
• December 12, 2024: Filing Receipt for KFU, Docket 33190.19U

13. In addition, Martha Long sent solicitation emails to prospective clients explicitly using Plaintiff's name and reputation to attract new business, including:

C. Category 3: Trademark Practice Name Use

14. Plaintiff's name was also exploited across a second practice area -- trademarks. Howard Kline, trademark practitioner at NGM, sent 2,678 emails (91% of which CC'd Plaintiff) while managing a trademark portfolio that clients and outside counsel associated with Plaintiff's name. See Exhibit E (Trademark Name Use Exhibit).

15. The representative case study is Nicola Pizza, where:

16. Another trademark client, Dakota AG Innovations, referred to NGM as "The Litman Law office" in October 2024, and made purchasing decisions based on Plaintiff's name and reputation.

D. Category 4: Foreseeable Republication

17. Each of the 905 patents bearing Plaintiff's name was automatically indexed by at least ten third-party patent databases, resulting in approximately 9,050 additional publications of Plaintiff's name in commercial databases. See Exhibit F (Foreseeable Republication Memo).

18. The 13 patents issued after July 21, 2024 generated 130 additional third-party database entries in the strongest statute-of-limitations period. These database republications are ongoing, permanent, and were entirely foreseeable to Defendant as a registered patent attorney.

E. Combined Scale of Name Use

19. The combined unauthorized commercial use of Plaintiff's name totals approximately 36,500 acts, as follows:

III. Continuing and Successive Publications

20. Each act of name use identified above constitutes a separate publication under NY Civil Rights Law Section 51, not a republication of a single original work. Each patent is a distinct government record with its own unique patent number, issue date, claims, and specification. Each prosecution document (Filing Receipt, Office Action, Notice of Allowance) is a separate official record generated at a different stage of the application process. Each client email was a separate communication delivered on a specific date to a specific recipient. Each trademark filing addressed a different trademark.

21. This action is timely as to all publications within one year of the filing date (July 21, 2025). The 13 patents issued after July 21, 2024, the client emails continuing through July 2025, the trademark filings and billing through January 2025, and the ongoing database republications all fall within the limitations period. Moreover, Plaintiff contends that each separate act of name use is a new publication restarting the statute of limitations.

IV. Knowledge and Intent

22. Defendant's use of Plaintiff's name was knowing, intentional, and deliberate, as demonstrated by the following:

The KNPC Control Proof

23. Defendant's knowledge and control over whose name appeared on patent filings is conclusively demonstrated by the Kuwait National Petroleum Company (KNPC) portfolio:

V. Lack of Consent

24. Plaintiff did not consent, in writing or otherwise, to the use of his name on patent filings, USPTO documents, client correspondence, the firm website, or trademark filings after June 15, 2020. In support thereof, Plaintiff states:

• January 10, 2023: "Our communications should not be interpreted as agreeing to anything."
• May 1, 2023: "Were not agreed to by me at anytime."
• July 18, 2023: "We need to ensure there is no likelihood of confusion resulting from NGM's use of my name and affiliation with NGM post-termination."
• June 24, 2025: "There is no basis without my consent that I should still be listed on USPTO filings associated with NGM... it has to stop."
• June 28, 2025: Formal objection letter to Defendant's counsel reserving "all rights and remedies."

VI. Use for Purposes of Trade and Defendant's Benefit

25. Defendant used Plaintiff's name for purposes of trade and for Defendant's commercial benefit, as follows:

VII. Defendant's Admissions

26. Plaintiff relies upon the following admissions by Defendant, among others, as cataloged in Exhibit J (Admissions Inventory):

VIII. Personal Liability

27. Defendant is personally liable under Turane v. MGN, LLC and NY LLC Law Section 609 because he personally participated in the tortious conduct. Specifically:

IX. Damages

A. Actual Damages -- Profits Derived from Unauthorized Use

29. Between June 15, 2020 and May 2025, NGM collected approximately $18,526,460 in legal fees on matters where Plaintiff's name was used as the attorney of record. Plaintiff received approximately $3,705,292 in contractual 20% payments under the Combination Agreement. Those contractual payments compensated Plaintiff for the sale of his practice -- they did not compensate Plaintiff for the unauthorized use of his personal name on 905 patents, 206 USPTO documents, 24,526 client emails, or the firm website.

30. The remaining 80%, approximately $14,821,168, represents the profits Defendant derived from the unauthorized commercial exploitation of Plaintiff's name under Section 51.

B. Alternative Damages Theory -- Reasonable Royalty

31. In the alternative, Plaintiff contends that a reasonable royalty for the unauthorized commercial use of a prominent patent attorney's name on government filings is 20% of the revenue generated -- the same rate established by the Combination Agreement as the value of Plaintiff's origination credit. Under this theory, Plaintiff is entitled to an additional $3,705,292 beyond the contractual payments already made.

C. Punitive Damages

32. Plaintiff seeks exemplary damages pursuant to Section 51, which authorizes punitive damages for knowing and willful misappropriation. The evidence of willfulness includes:

33. The estimated range of damages, inclusive of punitive damages, is $11,100,000 to $29,600,000, depending on the compensatory base and the punitive multiplier applied.

D. Injunctive Relief

34. Plaintiff seeks an order directing Defendant to:

X. Response to Defendant's Affirmative Defenses

35. While a Bill of Particulars does not ordinarily address affirmative defenses, Plaintiff notes the following to forestall confusion:

XI. Exhibits

36. Plaintiff intends to rely on the following exhibits, among others, in support of this Bill of Particulars: