TO: Counsel for Plaintiff FROM: Litman Intelligence Research Team DATE: March 29, 2026 RE: BOP Filing Package -- Ready for Review, Signature, and Filing by April 2, 2026
CASE: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 COURT: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County BEFORE: Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C. SURVIVING CLAIM: Count V -- NY Civil Rights Law Sections 50-51
This memorandum accompanies the complete Bill of Particulars filing package for the above-captioned matter. Everything needed to file is enclosed. The package has been prepared to comply with Goldberg's three-item BOP demand and is formatted consistent with Whirl Knits, Inc. v. Leshkowitz and CPLR 3043 requirements.
| Exhibit | Description |
|---|---|
| A | POA Goldberg Signature Summary Table -- 16 of 21 Powers of Attorney personally signed by Joshua B. Goldberg (Reg. 44126), each appointing Customer Number 37833 and causing Litman's name to appear as attorney of record |
| B | 905-Patent Dataset -- Complete list of patents issued after 6/15/2020 listing Richard C. Litman as attorney |
| C | Representative Patent Front Pages -- USPTO front pages showing "Richard C. Litman" on Line 74 (US 11,881,807; US 11,980,937; US 12,043,608) |
| D | Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821) -- Goldberg's own document stating "Assignor owns his name" |
| E | Prosecution Chain Documents -- 7-stage mechanism tracing POA to patent issuance for App 18/392,663 (the December 21, 2023 "bombshell" where Goldberg signed both the POA and assignment cover sheet on the same day) |
| F | Switchover Evidence -- Two-stage flip: (1) Box-2 decision flip on Form PTOL-85 Part B (Issue Fee Transmittal), 6/5/2024 (last "Richard C. Litman" forms — US 12,116,333 and D1,046,141) -> 6/12/2024 (first "Joshua B. Goldberg" form — US 12,060,336, App. 18/624,045), same firm-registered signer / Reg. No. / Deposit Account / Customer No. 37833, only Box 2 Line 2 changed; and (2) the downstream eGrant issuance flip on the WIPO INID (74) line of issued patents, 1/14/2025 (US 12,194,434, last Litman-named) -> 1/21/2025 (US 12,201,650, first Goldberg-default), with 205+ subsequent CN-37833 patents electing Goldberg (corrected 2026-04-26 — see SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md) |
| G | Website Evidence -- Wayback Machine captures of nathlaw.com showing Litman listed as "PATENT ATTORNEY" (no "Retired" designation) through June 21, 2025, removed only after lawsuit filed |
| H | Financial Summary -- $32.7M in trust receipts from Litman-originated clients; $18.53M collected post-6/15/2020; 95 Goldberg-directed trust transactions |
| I | Admissions Inventory -- 12 admissions from 6 sources (Answer, Discovery, RFAs, BOP Response, Arbitration, Federal Case) compiled against interest |
| J | Republication Evidence -- Litman's name appearing on Google Patents, Lens.org, and other third-party databases as a direct consequence of Goldberg's POA filings |
| Memo | Subject |
|---|---|
| Coercion and Control Memo | 18 insurance threads showing Goldberg leveraged health insurance over a disabled man; KSU collection contradiction ($2.1M+); text message neutralization (three independent grounds) |
| Mechanism of Liability Memo | How Goldberg caused Litman's name to appear: POA filing, Customer Number 37833, USPTO propagation chain, 7-stage mechanism |
| Personal Liability Memo | Why Goldberg is personally liable, not just the firm -- pierce-the-veil analysis, personal POA signatures, personal control of trust accounts |
| Misappropriation Elements Proof Memo | Element-by-element proof of all Sections 50-51 requirements with citation to evidence |
| Goldberg Personal Actions Chronology | Date-by-date timeline of every personal act by Goldberg establishing causation |
| What He Said | What the Evidence Shows |
|---|---|
| "Purely as a courtesy" (BOP Response, Eighth Defense) | 9 days earlier, his RFA #7 response claimed the Combination Agreements authorized the name use. It cannot be both a contractual right and a gratuitous courtesy. |
| "Unable to recall" signing POAs (RFA #3 response) | 16 authenticated POA signatures, which he submitted under oath as Federal Exhibit A in Litman v. Nath (EDNY). |
| "Agreement terminated 6/15/2020" (Arbitration position, accepted by arbitrator) | Now relies on that same terminated agreement as the consent basis for name use (Discovery Response #1). |
| "Plaintiff requested continued association" | Zero consent emails in 276,899 searched. Three explicit non-consent emails. Five blocked client notifications over four years. |
| "No damages" | $18.53M collected under Litman's name. $2.1M+ KSU receivables collected using Litman's personal relationships. Professional liability insurance listing Litman through 2025. |
Full evidence platform: http://72.167.47.19/richie/website/
All evidence, analytics, and search tools are available through the website, including: - 252 Bates-numbered documents (LITMAN000001-001293) in the Discovery Production portal - 276,899 searchable emails with Relativity-style coding - 8 interactive litigation analytics visualizations - All memos, exhibits, and filings - New "Coercion and Control" page with insurance timeline and KSU contradiction analysis
Target filing date: April 2, 2026
Four significant developments since our last communication:
We identified and analyzed 18 insurance-related email threads showing that Goldberg leveraged health insurance as a tool of control over a disabled man whose wife has Crohn's disease. The key findings:
This evidence destroys the consent defense (consent obtained under coercion is voidable) and supports a finding of willful misappropriation warranting punitive damages.
We found 874 emails documenting that Goldberg recruited the supposedly "terminated" and "dead" Litman to collect $2.1M+ from King Saud University using Litman's personal relationships -- the very relationships that gave his name its commercial value.
The smoking gun: On April 7, 2022, Litman wrote: "Stan let me know that Merritt mentioned to him about me helping collect from KSU." The firm's own outside counsel was discussing Litman's ongoing involvement. Litman then met Goldberg in person in Brooklyn for a collection strategy meeting.
On July 18, 2023, Litman wrote the devastating summary: "NGM vehemently argued in the arbitration the combination ended three years ago and the Judge agreed with NGM's position that it was like I was dead as of June 15, 2020." The firm argued he was dead while asking the dead man to collect $2.1 million.
Goldberg may attempt to use text messages from the arbitration period as implied consent. We have identified three independent legal grounds making these texts meaningless:
The transcript of the December 5, 2025 oral decision (Judge Maslow) has been obtained. Key takeaways:
| Goldberg's Position | Our Counter-Evidence |
|---|---|
| "Purely as a courtesy" (BOP Response, Eighth Defense) | Contradicts his own RFA #7 response (9 days earlier) claiming the Agreements authorized use. $18.53M in fees is not a "courtesy." 874 KSU collection emails prove commercial reliance on Litman's name. |
| Single publication rule (all 905 patents = one act) | Each patent has a unique number, unique date, unique content, and required a separate POA filing. 206 outgoing USPTO documents identified. Judge Maslow preserved Count V with full knowledge of the volume. |
| Consent via Combination Agreements | Zero name-use provisions in either the original Agreement or the Amendment. The Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Goldberg's own document) states "Assignor owns his name." April 30, 2021 email expressly reserves name rights. |
| Plaintiff "requested" continued association | Zero consent emails in 276,899 searched. Three explicit non-consent emails (May 2023, July 2023, June 2025). Five blocked client notification attempts over four years. |
| Res judicata (arbitration decided this) | The Sections 50-51 claim was not raised and could not have been raised in the Virginia arbitration, which addressed only the Combination Agreement. Different cause of action, different elements, different relief. |
| Federal preemption | Not raised as an affirmative defense in Goldberg's Answer -- waived. In any event, Section 51 is a state privacy tort protecting personal identity, not a patent law claim. |
| Statute of limitations | Continuing wrong doctrine: name use occurred continuously from 6/15/2020 through 1/14/2025. Last POA signed January 17, 2025. Website listing through June 21, 2025. Complaint filed July 21, 2025. |
| No damages | $32.7M in trust receipts. $18.53M post-6/15/2020. $2.1M+ KSU receivables. Professional liability policy listing Litman as "Of Counsel" (Goldberg signed application 7/6/2021). COBRA at $2,867.11/month after termination. |
| Implied consent / acquiescence | Silence is not consent when the silent party depends on the other for life-sustaining medical coverage. In any event, Litman was not silent -- he raised name use on at least six documented occasions between April 2021 and June 2025. |
| Good faith / lack of willfulness | "Fraud" text (1/30/2023). June 5-12, 2024 Box-2 decision flip on Form PTOL-85 Part B (US 12,116,333/D1,046,141 -> US 12,060,336) and downstream Jan. 14-21, 2025 eGrant flip (US 12,194,434 -> US 12,201,650) prove ability to control name use. Insurance leverage during settlement. 16 POAs signed after disability, 12 after arbitration. (corrected 2026-04-26 — see SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md) |
The BOP locks in our factual position for trial. Everything disclosed in the BOP can be proven with evidence already in hand. We have not overstated any figure or claimed any fact we cannot substantiate.
Amendment preserved. Under CPLR 3042(b), we have preserved the right to serve one amended BOP before Note of Issue (February 5, 2027). This allows us to supplement if Goldberg's deposition or additional discovery yields new facts.
Damages qualification. All damages figures are stated with the phrase "based on information presently available" to preserve the ability to adjust upward as additional financial records are obtained.
Coercion evidence is strategic, not filed. The insurance leverage and KSU collection evidence is not in the BOP itself -- it is a factual response to Goldberg's demand, not an argumentative brief. However, this evidence is available for the motion for summary judgment and will be devastating at deposition.
Goldberg's deposition is still pending. Due date: June 2, 2026. Goldberg's February 24 appearance was a failure to appear. The KSU collection emails and insurance leverage evidence create devastating impeachment material. He will be confronted with the "purely as a courtesy" characterization while we present the $2.1M collection campaign and the insurance threats.
Judicial estoppel is ready to deploy. Goldberg argued in arbitration that the Agreement terminated on June 15, 2020, and the arbitrator accepted that position. He now claims that same Agreement authorizes continued name use. He cannot have it both ways. This argument is fully briefed and ready for MSJ.
The Box-2 decision flip is the strongest single piece of evidence. The decisional moment is the June 5-12, 2024 seven-day window on Form PTOL-85 Part B (Issue Fee Transmittal): on June 5, 2024 the firm-registered signer typed "Richard C. Litman" in Box 2 Line 2 (the field that controls the front-page WIPO INID (74) attribution) on US 12,116,333 and D1,046,141; seven days later on June 12, 2024, the same signer typed "Joshua B. Goldberg" in the same field on US 12,060,336 (App. 18/624,045). Same Reg. No., same NGM Deposit Account, same Customer No. 37833 — only Box 2 Line 2 changed. The January 14-21, 2025 eGrant issuance flip (US 12,194,434 last Litman-named -> US 12,201,650 first Goldberg-default; 205+ subsequent CN-37833 patents electing Goldberg) is the downstream public consequence. Together they prove the firm had the ability to stop the name use at any time and chose not to. The 12 SOL-window patents that issued post-7/21/2024 still carrying Litman's name issued after the firm had already made the Box-2 switch internally — consciousness of wrongdoing, not correction. (corrected 2026-04-26 — see SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md)
All evidence, analysis, and litigation tools are accessible at:
http://72.167.47.19/richie/website/
The website includes:
The website is password-protected. Credentials have been provided separately.
This package represents the culmination of a comprehensive evidence-gathering and analysis effort encompassing 276,899 emails, 905 patents, 21 USPTO application files, 16 authenticated POA signatures, $32.7M in financial records, and contemporaneous documentation spanning five years of unauthorized name use.
The evidence is overwhelming. Goldberg admitted the name use. He signed the documents that caused it. He collected millions from the clients it attracted. He held health insurance over the man whose name he used. And when a lawsuit became inevitable, he proved he could have stopped it at any time by replacing Litman's name with his own in a single week.
We have done the work. Everything is ready. We need your review, Richard's signature, and filing by April 2.
Prepared by the Litman Intelligence Research Team in connection with Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025. Attorney Work Product -- Privileged and Confidential