Litman v. Goldberg

Index No. 524343/2025 | NY Sup. Ct., Kings County | Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C.

The Claim

Richard Litman's name was used on 905 U.S. patents and the NGM firm website for commercial gain after he left the firm, without his consent. The sole surviving count is misappropriation of name under NY Civil Rights Law sections 50-51.

Three Elements of Liability

Element	Status	Proof
1. Use of Name	ADMITTED	Goldberg's Answer paragraph 32: admits Litman's name appeared on patent front pages and NGM website after 6/15/2020
2. For Trade Purposes	Proven	$18.53M in revenue collected from Litman-originated clients during the unauthorized use period
3. Without Consent	Unrebutted	Goldberg produced zero consent documents in discovery; 276,899 emails searched, none granting consent; 3 explicit non-consent emails found

The Evidence

905 patents listing Litman as attorney after 6/15/2020; 206 outgoing USPTO documents each a separate "publication" under section 51
16 Powers of Attorney personally signed by Goldberg (Reg. 44126) -- the direct causal mechanism putting Litman's name on government filings
18 PTOL-85B filing receipts signed by Lafave (Reg. 71013) under Goldberg's direction
19,000+ emails from Martha Long to KFU clients using Litman-attributed dockets
276,899 emails searched -- zero consent found; 3 emails explicitly refusing consent
Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (USPTO Reel 007281, Frame 0821): Goldberg's own recorded document states "Assignor owns his name, signature, voice, image" -- destroys his consent defense
Goldberg's 01/17/2023 email explaining POA mechanism controls attorney status -- proves he knew exactly how name-use worked and chose to continue it

Key Deadlines

Date	Event
04/02/2026	Bills of Particulars due
06/02/2026	Depositions complete
09/22/2026	Compliance conference (CCP Room 282, 9:30am)
02/05/2027	Note of Issue

Damages

$11.1M (conservative, fee-based) to $29.6M (full unjust enrichment + statutory damages)

Why We Win

Goldberg admits the use, his own document says Litman owns his name, he produced no consent, and his 16 personal POA signatures prove he caused every instance of misappropriation.