TO: Scott Woller, Esq. (Wachtel Missry LLP) FROM: Litman Intelligence Research Team DATE: March 30, 2026 RE: Updated BOP Filing Package -- Two Versions Available for April 2 Deadline; Recommendation to File Comprehensive Version
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
The Bill of Particulars is due April 2, 2026. Two versions now exist:
Scott's draft (Wachtel Missry version, dated March 31, 2026) -- An objection-heavy approach providing minimal substantive responses. References "hundreds of patent applications" without identifying a single patent, a single POA, or a single dollar figure.
Our comprehensive version (enclosed) -- A fully particularized BOP backed by 905 identified patents, 16 authenticated POA signatures, $18.53M in documented post-SOL revenue, and 283 iCloud Photos reviewed as of March 30, 2026.
Our recommendation: File the comprehensive version. At minimum, supplement Scott's draft with our exhibits. The reasons are set forth below.
| Element | Scott's Draft (Wachtel Missry) | Our Comprehensive Version |
|---|---|---|
| Patents identified | Vague reference to "hundreds of patent applications" | 905 specific patents listed by number, date, and client (Exhibit B) |
| POA evidence | Not mentioned | 16 POA signatures by Goldberg personally identified, dated, and authenticated (Exhibit A) |
| Mechanism of name use | Not explained | 7-stage prosecution chain documented: POA filing, Customer Number CN-37833, Filing Receipt, Office Action, NOA (PTOL-85), Line 74, republication |
| Damages figures | Not quantified | $14.8M unjust enrichment (primary); $3.7M reasonable royalty (alternative); supported by trust ledger analysis |
| Goldberg admissions | Not referenced | 28 admissions from 8 sources cataloged (Answer, Discovery, RFAs, BOP Response, Arbitration, Federal Case, Text Messages, Emails) |
| Timeline of acts | General date range only | Date-specific chronology from June 15, 2020 through January 17, 2025 (last POA) and June 21, 2025 (last website listing) |
| Switchover evidence | Not mentioned | Two-stage flip: (1) Box-2 decision flip on Form PTOL-85 Part B, 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 Reg. No. / Deposit Account / Customer No. 37833, only Box 2 Line 2 changed; (2) downstream eGrant issuance flip on the WIPO INID (74) line, 1/14/2025 (US 12,194,434) -> 1/21/2025 (US 12,201,650), with 205+ subsequent CN-37833 patents electing Goldberg (corrected 2026-04-26 — see SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md) |
| Commercial value | Not addressed | Three independent witnesses (Thomas Bennington, Dakota AG/Lynn Odland, Omar Albannai) documenting goodwill attached to Litman's name |
| Consent rebuttal | Not addressed | Zero consent emails in 276,899 searched; three explicit non-consent emails; five blocked client notifications |
| Financial specifics | None | $32.7M trust receipts, $18.53M post-SOL, $16.2M accounting gap, $156K chased payment, $35K missing KFU allocation |
| Exhibits | None enclosed | 10 exhibits (A through J) plus 5 supporting memoranda |
| Objections | Heavy -- objections to each demand item | Minimal -- responsive to all three items in Goldberg's demand with specific facts |
A BOP that says "hundreds of patent applications" without naming one invites a motion to compel a more definite statement under CPLR 3042(a). Goldberg's counsel at Connell Foley will argue the response is insufficient to enable them to prepare for trial. Under Whirl Knits, Inc. v. Leshkowitz, a BOP must set forth specific facts -- not conclusions, not generalities, not objections.
More critically, the objection-heavy approach signals weakness. It tells the court we have something to hide when the opposite is true: we have overwhelming evidence and nothing to fear from particularization.
There is a natural instinct to disclose as little as possible in a Bill of Particulars. In this case, that instinct is wrong. Here is why:
It locks in the evidentiary framework. Once the BOP is filed, the 905 patents, 16 POAs, $18.53M revenue figure, and the switchover evidence become the agreed factual architecture of the case. Goldberg cannot claim surprise when these items appear at trial.
It prevents the "moving target" defense. If our BOP is vague, Goldberg can argue at summary judgment that we never specified what we were complaining about. A particularized BOP eliminates that argument entirely.
It sets up summary judgment. Our MSJ brief (Points I-V) is already written to match the BOP exhibits. The BOP and the MSJ share the same exhibit structure. Filing a thin BOP would require rebuilding the MSJ from scratch.
It creates impeachment opportunities. Every fact in the BOP that Goldberg fails to dispute in his responsive pleading becomes an informal admission. Given that he has already admitted the name appeared on patents (Answer Paragraph 32) and the website (Answer Paragraph 72), a detailed BOP forces him to either admit more or create contradictions we can exploit at deposition.
It demonstrates litigation readiness. Judge Gotlieb will see a party that has done the work. This matters when the compliance conference arrives on September 22, 2026, and when we file the MSJ.
The evidence is already in hand. We are not disclosing anything we cannot prove. Every figure, every patent number, every date, every admission is backed by documents already in our possession. There is no risk of over-commitment.
The following evidence was identified on March 30, 2026, and is incorporated into the updated package:
Richard Litman's iCloud Photos account was reviewed in full. The 283 photographs -- primarily screenshots of text messages, emails, WhatsApp conversations, patent documents, and court filings from his personal iPhone -- span May 2020 through August 2025. A complete evidence memo (ICLOUD_PHOTOS_EVIDENCE_MEMO.md) and exhibit index (ICLOUD_PHOTOS_EXHIBIT_INDEX.csv) have been prepared.
The text message screenshots constitute the complete Litman-Goldberg text exchange from May 2020 through July 2025. This is the single most important new evidence source. It documents:
Sixteen admissions against interest by Joshua B. Goldberg have been extracted from the text messages and email correspondence. These are cataloged in ADMISSIONS_FROM_ICLOUD_TEXTS.md and include:
| # | Date | Admission | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | June 15, 2021 | "I will continue managing the firm as I have been" | Direct admission of control over all firm operations |
| 2 | Jan. 28, 2023 | "you get your percentage of collected fees billed" | Acknowledges commercial fee stream tied to Litman's name |
| 3 | Jan. 30, 2023 | "I am fine with you being considered 'Senior Counsel'" | Proves Goldberg controlled name/title use; limited to website only |
| 4 | Jan. 31, 2023 | "Yes" (will honor payments if firm restructures) | Payment obligation personal to Goldberg, not entity-dependent |
| 5 | June 20, 2024 | "Yes, Scottsdale is our current carrier" | Links to insurance application where Goldberg listed Litman as "Of Counsel" |
| 6 | Aug. 14, 2024 | Fails to dispute "7 figures owed" | Adoptive admission of seven-figure obligation |
| 7 | Oct. 4, 2024 | "KFU is getting back to normal. I expect payments from them to resume" | Ongoing commercial activity under Litman's name |
| 8 | Dec. 23, 2024 | "KFU is winding up with 631 patents this year" | Admits massive patent volume under Litman's name pipeline |
| 9 | May 4, 2025 | "Really good day with KSU and Thamer" | Exploiting Litman-originated client relationships |
| 10 | June 2025 | Soluno reports "didn't include payments actually made" | Admits accounting system was deficient |
| 11 | July 18, 2025 | "Let me find out from IT what happened" (re: email cutoff) | Acknowledges email elimination while name still on 453 open matters |
| 12 | Mar. 8, 2021 | "we would rather we all do it together than you going off on your own" | Admits he wanted Litman's continued association for commercial benefit |
| 13 | Mar. 8, 2021 | "thank you for offering to help, without a paycheck" | Litman working without compensation while name used for revenue |
| 14 | June 11, 2025 | "you should clearly receive your percentage of any non-USPTO fees" | Admits Litman's fee entitlement; concedes possible non-payment |
| 15 | June 13, 2025 | "If we have to send a second wire to make up any shortfall, we will" | Acknowledges payment shortfalls |
| 16 | June 21, 2024 | Provides trust bank account info; acknowledges bar dues administration | Admits managing Litman's professional identity infrastructure |
Three independent sources confirm the commercial value of the Litman name:
Thomas Bennington (IMG_1553, July 3, 2025): Former client who returned to the NGM website specifically seeking Litman. Stated: "a customer of Richard Litman's from way back... I thought the world of Mr. Litman." Direct evidence that the name on the website functioned as a commercial draw.
Dakota AG / Lynn Odland (IMG_1565, October 2024): Current client who referred to the firm as "The Litman Law office," stating: "Our experience with The Litman Law office was such that we are not interested in looking elsewhere." The client identifies the firm by Litman's name, not the firm's actual name.
Omar Albannai (WhatsApp, IMG_0585-0588, August 17, 2025): Middle Eastern contact who wrote: "East or west Richard is the best so you are unplaceable to me." Demonstrates international goodwill attached to Litman's name in the Gulf State patent market -- the firm's largest revenue source.
Text messages from July 18-21, 2025 document that Litman's email accounts (litman@4patent.com and the Nath law account) were eliminated one day after he threatened litigation. Goldberg acknowledged the elimination but never restored access. The eliminated accounts contained direct evidence of name use in client correspondence. This supports a potential spoliation motion and is independently relevant to the consent defense -- a person who has been cut off from the systems that document name use cannot meaningfully consent to that use.
Text messages and emails from June 2025 document:
This transforms the $16.2M accounting gap ($32.7M trust vs. $16.5M workup) from a statistical inference into a documented pattern of intentional financial manipulation.
| Exhibit | Description |
|---|---|
| A | POA Goldberg Signature Summary Table -- 16 of 21 Powers of Attorney personally signed by Joshua B. Goldberg (Reg. 44126) |
| B | 905-Patent Dataset -- Complete list of patents issued after 6/15/2020 listing Litman as attorney |
| C | Representative Patent Front Pages -- USPTO front pages showing Litman on Line 74 |
| D | Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821) -- Goldberg's document stating "Assignor owns his name" |
| E | Prosecution Chain Documents -- 7-stage mechanism for App 18/392,663 (December 21, 2023 "bombshell") |
| 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 Reg. No. / Deposit Account / Customer No. 37833, only Box 2 Line 2 changed; and (2) downstream eGrant issuance flip on the WIPO INID (74) line, 1/14/2025 (US 12,194,434) -> 1/21/2025 (US 12,201,650), with 205+ subsequent CN-37833 patents electing Goldberg (corrected 2026-04-26 — see SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md) |
| G | Website Evidence -- Wayback Machine captures showing Litman as "PATENT ATTORNEY" through June 21, 2025 |
| H | Financial Summary -- $32.7M trust receipts; $18.53M post-6/15/2020; 95 Goldberg-directed trust transactions |
| I | Admissions Inventory -- 28 admissions from 8 sources (Answer, Discovery, RFAs, BOP Response, Arbitration, Federal Case, Text Messages, Emails) |
| J | Republication Evidence -- Litman's name on Google Patents, Lens.org, and third-party databases |
| Document | Description |
|---|---|
| ICLOUD_PHOTOS_EVIDENCE_MEMO.md | Complete evidence memo from 283 iCloud Photos review |
| ADMISSIONS_FROM_ICLOUD_TEXTS.md | 16 new Goldberg admissions from texts and emails with legal significance analysis |
| ICLOUD_PHOTOS_EXHIBIT_INDEX.csv | Exhibit index: filename, type, date, parties, summary, legal element, importance rating |
| Memo | Subject |
|---|---|
| Coercion and Control Memo | 18 insurance threads; KSU collection contradiction; text message neutralization |
| Mechanism of Liability Memo | How Goldberg caused name to appear: POA, CN-37833, 7-stage chain |
| Personal Liability Memo | Pierce-the-veil analysis; personal POA signatures; personal trust account control |
| Misappropriation Elements Proof | Element-by-element proof with citation to evidence |
| Goldberg Personal Actions Chronology | Date-by-date timeline of every personal act establishing causation |
| iCloud Photos Evidence Memo | 283 images analyzed; text message timeline; three new goodwill witnesses; accounting fraud pattern (NEW) |
| Admissions from iCloud Texts | 16 new admissions against interest from texts and emails (NEW) |
| What He Said | What the Evidence Shows |
|---|---|
| "Purely as a courtesy" (BOP Response, Eighth Defense) | 9 days earlier, RFA #7 claimed the Agreements authorized use. $18.53M in fees. 631 KFU patents in one year. |
| "Unable to recall" signing POAs (RFA #3) | 16 authenticated POA signatures; submitted under oath as Federal Exhibit A in EDNY case. |
| "Agreement terminated 6/15/2020" (Arbitration) | Now relies on that same agreement as 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. |
| "No damages" | $18.53M collected. $2.1M+ KSU receivables. Professional liability insurance listing Litman through 2025. "7 figures owed" -- undisputed by Goldberg. |
| Denies he "caused" name use (Answer Para. 33) | "I will continue managing the firm as I have been" (text, June 15, 2021). KFU 631 patents celebrated. Middle East client trips. |
| Consent defense (Tenth Affirmative Defense) | "Senior Counsel" discussion limited to website title only. Litman planning own entity post-arbitration. Email access eliminated when Litman objected. |
Full evidence platform: http://72.167.47.19/richie/website/
All evidence, analytics, and search tools available, including 252 Bates-numbered documents, 276,899 searchable emails, 8 interactive visualizations, all memos, exhibits, and filings.
Filing deadline: April 2, 2026
The BOP locks in our factual position for trial. Everything disclosed 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 supplementation after Goldberg's deposition or additional discovery.
Damages qualification. All figures stated with "based on information presently available" to preserve upward adjustment.
The iCloud Photos add a human dimension. The 905 patents and 16 POAs establish the mechanism. The text messages establish the intent. Goldberg's own words -- "I will continue managing the firm as I have been" -- prove this was deliberate, knowing, and continuous. The goodwill witnesses (Bennington, Odland, Albannai) prove the name had independent commercial value.
Goldberg's deposition is still pending. Due June 2, 2026. The 16 new text message admissions create devastating impeachment material. He will be confronted with his own words while trying to maintain the positions in his Answer.
Judicial estoppel is ready to deploy. Goldberg argued in arbitration that the Agreement terminated June 15, 2020. He now claims that same Agreement authorizes continued name use. Fully briefed and ready for MSJ.
The Box-2 decision flip remains 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 -> US 12,201,650; 205+ subsequent CN-37833 patents electing Goldberg) is the downstream public consequence — proving the firm had the ability to stop the name use at any time. (corrected 2026-04-26 — see SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md)
The accounting fraud pattern supports punitive damages. The June 2025 texts documenting trust account manipulation, client renumbering, and Goldberg's own admission that accounting reports "didn't include payments actually made" take this case beyond simple misappropriation into willful exploitation with concealment.
Spoliation is a live issue. The email elimination on July 18, 2025, one day after litigation was threatened, may support a motion for an adverse inference instruction. Those accounts contained direct evidence of name use in client correspondence spanning five years.
We now have two packages before you: a thin version that invites a motion to compel and a comprehensive version that demonstrates overwhelming evidence. The comprehensive version is the product of reviewing 276,899 emails, 905 patents, 21 USPTO application files, 16 authenticated POA signatures, $32.7M in financial records, 283 iCloud Photos, a complete five-year text message thread, and 28 cataloged admissions against interest.
The evidence is not just strong -- it is dispositive. 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. He admitted he ran the firm. He celebrated the patent milestones. 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.
There is no strategic advantage to hiding this evidence behind objections. The stronger move is to lay it all out, force Goldberg to respond to specifics, and set the stage for summary judgment.
We recommend filing the comprehensive version. If there is any concern about disclosure volume, we are available to discuss a hybrid approach that preserves the factual specificity while adjusting tone. But the exhibits should accompany whatever version is filed.
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