Case: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 Court: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County Judge: Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C. Deponent: Joshua B. Goldberg, Reg. No. 44126 Prepared: April 9, 2026 Classification: Attorney Work Product / Privileged
Instructions for Examining Counsel: Each question is designed to elicit a yes/no answer or a specific admission. Show the listed exhibit immediately when the witness gives an answer inconsistent with the document. The trap is the pivot point — the moment the witness commits to a position the document contradicts. Never show the exhibit before the witness answers.
Q1. On March 18, 2024, King Faisal University wired money to your firm — correct?
Exhibit: Bank of America Wire_8751 account records, March 18, 2024
Trap: He says yes (he must — the wire slip exists). Follow: "And that wire was for $595,214?" He must confirm the amount.
Q2. Client funds received by your firm are required to be deposited into the client's trust account before any transfer to operating — correct?
Exhibit: VA RPC 1.15 / DC RPC 1.15 / NGM's own internal trust accounting procedures
Trap: If he says yes, proceed to Q3. If he says "it depends," ask him to identify any exception that permits direct deposit into operating. There is none on these facts.
Q3. The $595,214 KFU wire on March 18, 2024 was deposited directly into your firm's Bank of America Operating account — not into trust account 36372 — correct?
Exhibit: Bank of America Wire_8751 account records showing Operating_2417 as destination; Soluno correction entry dated March 19, 2024
Trap: If he denies it, show the correction entry in NGM's own Soluno system: "Correction: There was a wire transfer from the Bank of America Wire_8751 account to the Bank of America Operating_2417 account on March 18, 2024 for $595,214." His own system generated this record.
Q4. NGM's accounting system — Soluno — recorded this $595,214 KFU wire as $594,214 — a $1,000 underrecording — correct?
Exhibit: Soluno correction entry, March 19, 2024
Trap: If he says he was unaware, ask who authorized the correction entry. If he says it was a clerical error, ask why the amount was corrected upward — not downward — and why the correction entry documented the exact routing path to operating.
Q5. Of the 86 operating transfers from KFU trust account 36372, you can identify the specific invoices those transfers covered in only 3 instances — correct?
Exhibit: KFU_36372_TRUST_MANIPULATION_MEMO.md; Transfer vs Credit Reconciliation.csv (69 uncredited transfers)
Trap: If he denies it, ask him to name a single additional invoice reference. He cannot — only 3 of 86 transfers carried any invoice reference. If he claims records exist elsewhere, demand their production.
Q6. As of June 11, 2025, you wrote to Mr. Litman: "many of the Trust Ledgers are blank." Is that your handwriting — or your email?
Exhibit: IMG_1416.PNG (June 11, 2025 email screenshot)
Trap: He must authenticate the email. Then: "When you said the trust ledgers were blank, you were referring to individual client trust ledgers that VA/DC rules require you to maintain — correct?"
Q7. In that same June 11, 2025 email, you wrote: "For KFU, you should clearly receive your percentage of any non-USPTO fees we received. If that is not happening, I need to figure out why." Did you write that?
Exhibit: IMG_1417.PNG (June 11, 2025 Goldberg KFU admission)
Trap: He must say yes. Then: "As of today — April 9, 2026 — have you figured out why Mr. Litman's 20% was not credited on the $595,214 March 2024 wire?" The answer will be no or evasive. Either establishes breach and willfulness.
Q8. In March 2024, KFU trust account 36372 had 20 separate transactions totaling $1,112,524 — on none of which was Mr. Litman credited his 20% share. Is that your understanding of the records?
Exhibit: KFU_RCL_MISSING_ALLOCATIONS_PDF_ANALYSIS.md; Transfer vs Credit Reconciliation.csv
Trap: If he disputes the figure, ask him to identify even one March 2024 KFU transaction on which Litman was credited. He cannot. The KFU_36372 ledger shows $0 credit to RCL for the entire month.
Q9. Mr. Litman's 20% share on the $595,214 KFU wire alone is approximately $119,043. Has that $119,043 ever been paid to Mr. Litman?
Exhibit: EGREGIOUS_ACCOUNTING_BY_CLIENT_KFU_KSU_KISR.md; Fidelity account deposit history (645-375268)
Trap: He will say it is reflected in some other payment. Ask him to identify the specific NGM-to-Litman wire date and amount that includes this $119,043. He has no such document, because the payment was never made.
Q10. On December 23, 2022, King Saud University wired $1,437,518 to your firm's Bank of America trust account — correct?
Exhibit: $1,437,568.00.jpg (actual KSU wire transfer slip)
Trap: The wire slip is in evidence. He must confirm. Note: the slip shows $1,437,568 (SAR conversion rounds differently from USD); use his own records to establish the exact amount.
Q11. Within four to five days of receiving that $1.4 million KSU wire — specifically on December 27 and 28, 2022 — your firm made five separate operating transfers from that trust account totaling $1,290,721. Is that correct?
Exhibit: KFU_KSU_RECONCILIATION_DETAIL.csv; Trust transfer records for December 2022
Trap: If he denies the amounts or timing, show the five individual transfers itemized in the reconciliation. If he claims the transfers were for legitimate invoices, ask him to identify the invoice number for each of the five transfers. None carry invoice references.
Q12. None of those five December 2022 operating transfers from the KSU trust docket included an invoice reference — correct?
Exhibit: KFU_KSU_RECONCILIATION_DETAIL.csv (showing "No invoice reference" on all five)
Trap: If he says invoices existed, demand he identify them by number. The reconciliation document establishes none were referenced. His own system reflects this.
Q13. Mr. Litman's 20% share on the $1,437,518 KSU wire is approximately $287,503. Has that amount ever been credited to Mr. Litman?
Exhibit: EGREGIOUS_ACCOUNTING_BY_CLIENT_KFU_KSU_KISR.md (showing $3,255 total KSU credit across all 326 dockets)
Trap: He cannot point to a payment of this amount. The entirety of KSU revenue credited to Litman across all 326 dockets is $3,255 — less than 0.4 cents on the dollar.
Q14. Of 326 KSU patent dockets in your firm's reconciliation, 224 — or 68.7% — show $0 collected and $0 credited to Mr. Litman, despite active invoices ranging from $938 to $23,210. Is that consistent with your understanding of the records?
Exhibit: KFU_KSU_RECONCILIATION_SUMMARY.md; KFU_KSU_RECONCILIATION_DETAIL.csv
Trap: If he disputes it, ask him to identify any of the 224 dockets on which collection is actually recorded. He cannot. This is his firm's own billing system output.
Q15. On April 4, 2023, Martha Long emailed your accounting department: "Pending Josh's approval, please transfer $2,290.00 from KSU General trust to Docket 33056.21." Did you approve that transfer?
Exhibit: April 4, 2023 Martha Long email (docket 33056.21); CC to ksu@4patent.com
Trap: If he says yes, he has admitted personal control over KSU trust fund movements. If he says he does not recall, show his reply: "Approved." — one word, from jgoldberg@nathlaw.com.
Q16. Every KSU trust transfer required your personal approval — correct? No KSU money moved from trust to operating without your sign-off?
Exhibit: Multiple "Approved." reply emails; "JBGverbal" authorization notations in trust ledgers; Martha Long email chain
Trap: If he denies it, ask how any KSU trust transfer was authorized. The "JBGverbal" notation — Goldberg verbal approval — appears throughout the KSU trust ledger. Personal control is documented in his firm's own system.
Q17. In May 2020, KSU paid your firm three wires totaling approximately $361,002 — money that Mr. Litman personally collected through his relationship with Dr. Thamer Albahkali. Within six days of those wires arriving, $328,067 was transferred to operating. Mr. Litman received $0 credit on those collections. Is that correct?
Exhibit: KFU_KSU_RECONCILIATION_DETAIL.csv; IMG_1421.PNG (Litman reporting KSU payments to his arbitration counsel)
Trap: He will claim the transfers were for work performed. Ask him to show the invoices for $328,067 worth of patent work billed in the same six-day window. They do not exist.
Q18. Your firm's records show eight instances of duplicate payments on KSU dockets totaling $24,472.19. What happened to those duplicate amounts?
Exhibit: KSU duplicate payment table (8 instances from EGREGIOUS_ACCOUNTING_BY_CLIENT_KFU_KSU_KISR.md Appendix)
Trap: He will likely say they were refunded or applied to other work. Ask him to produce the refund records or the specific application of each duplicate to a different docket. No such documentation is in the produced record.
Q19. On February 27, 2025 — while this litigation was pending — you directed Martha Long to "check with the client if we could repurpose" $26,300 in KSU funds that had been held in trust for 2.5 years. Did you consult Mr. Litman before giving that instruction?
Exhibit: February 27, 2025 "repurpose" email (dockets 33056.92 and 33056.93)
Trap: He will say no, or that Litman was no longer involved. Ask whether those dockets listed Litman as responsible lawyer in Soluno. They did. Unilateral redirection of funds from a docket bearing Litman's attorney number, without notice, during active litigation.
Q20. On December 30, 2024, your accounting staff member Valencia Gray informed you that KISR had wired $15,416.36 to the firm but the invoice balance was higher. She asked whether the remaining balance should be written off. Did you receive that communication?
Exhibit: KISR_EMAIL_TIMELINE.md (December 30, 2024 entry); Valencia Gray email
Trap: He must acknowledge the communication. The email is timestamped and he is the addressee.
Q21. You responded: "Yes, that remaining 15% should be written off." Did you write that?
Exhibit: Goldberg's December 30, 2024 email reply to Valencia Gray
Trap: He must authenticate the email. Then proceed directly to Q22.
Q22. Before writing off that balance, did you consult Mr. Litman?
Exhibit: None needed — absence of any Litman communication on this date is the evidence
Trap: He will say no. Ask: "Was Mr. Litman listed as the responsible lawyer on the KISR general matter docket 35798 in your Soluno system?" He must say yes. Then: "And you reduced the fee pool from which his 20% would be calculated without telling him?"
Q23. From January 2020 through March 2024, KISR wired a total of $272,367.78 to your firm. Mr. Litman's 20% share of that amount — $54,473.56 — was never credited to him. Is that correct?
Exhibit: KISR_DOCKET_FINANCIAL_SUMMARY.md; 20250610_KISR_Trust_Ledger.csv (Docket 35798)
Trap: If he disputes it, ask him to identify any Payment Allocation Report showing a KFU credit for KISR. KISR appears in only 2 of 10 months of extracted reports, and at amounts far below 20% of receipts.
Q24. On November 18, 2024, your firm swept $48,757.64 from the Bank of America trust account to EagleBank in a single batch wire that commingled KISR's $14,438.24 with funds from Kuwait University, King Faisal Specialist Hospital, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, and six unrelated domestic clients including Kevin Johnson, Peter Kador, and ISAAC TEC. Is that consistent with individual client trust account requirements?
Exhibit: Transaction 3843845 — November 18, 2024 batch wire (EGREGIOUS_ACCOUNTING_BY_CLIENT_KFU_KSU_KISR.md Appendix A)
Trap: He will likely claim this was a routine bank migration. Ask whether each client's funds were tracked separately through that migration. The transfer slip shows a single combined wire with no per-client breakdown. This is textbook commingling under VA/DC RPC 1.15.
Q25. On June 6, 2025, Mr. Litman formally demanded the trust ledger for KISR, identifying it specifically as a client "left off transfers." Did you produce that ledger voluntarily?
Exhibit: June 6, 2025 Litman demand email; GOULD_HURLEY_EMAIL_CORRESPONDENCE.md
Trap: He will say no — it was produced by Aaron Gould at Connell Foley months later. Ask: "So the ledger existed in your system in June 2025, you received a written demand for it, and it was not produced until 2026 through your litigation counsel?" Establishes active concealment.
Q26. On December 29, 2022, your firm wired $694,478.67 to Mr. Litman's Fidelity account — account number 645-375268. Did you authorize that wire?
Exhibit: Fidelity deposit OCR (652c7860ac79af98acd3f61e52433889.txt); NGM master spreadsheet — Litman 2025 Summary_December_.xlsx
Trap: He must confirm the wire. The Fidelity OCR establishes receipt on January 3, 2023. His own master spreadsheet shows the cumulative balance it was intended to pay.
Q27. Your counsel Merritt Green wrote to the arbitration case manager on December 27, 2022: "So long as this receivable resulted in NGM being underwater, pursuant to their contracts, they had no obligation to make payments to Mr. Litman." Is that an accurate statement of the contract?
Exhibit: Green letter (ND263146_Please_resolve_69447867_Wire_Transfer_-_RE_Richard_C_Litman.txt); Amendment to Agreement, Paragraph 1 Revenue definition
Trap: If he says yes, show him the Amendment. The Revenue definition permits deductions only for "fees and disbursement advanced by NGM" — not for uncollected receivables, not for projected client work, not for general firm "underwater" status. His own signed contract contradicts the "underwater" offset theory.
Q28. The Amendment to Agreement defines Revenue as, quote, "money paid" excluding only "fees and disbursement advanced by NGM." Does that definition permit NGM to deduct uncollected client receivables before calculating Mr. Litman's 20%?
Exhibit: Amendment to Agreement, Paragraph 1 (Revenue definition); AMENDMENT_ANALYSIS_FOR_UNCLE.html Section 7
Trap: The answer is no — the text is clear. If he says yes, ask him to point to the specific contractual language. There is none. This is the foundation of Scully's "concocted by guesswork" argument.
Q29. In September 2022, KSU paid approximately $600,000 to your firm — and those funds were deposited in trust "earmarked for future work" according to Merritt Green's December 27, 2022 letter. Your firm excluded that $600,000 from the calculation that produced the $694,478.67 wire. Is that correct?
Exhibit: Green letter quote: "approximately $600K in late September, but these monies were earmarked by the client for fees/expenses to be completed and the funds were deposited in the firm's trust account"; master spreadsheet Q4 2022 entry
Trap: If he says yes, ask: "And if the 20% formula had been applied to that $600,000, Mr. Litman would have been owed an additional $120,000?" He cannot credibly dispute the math. This establishes the undercount built into the very wire his own counsel presented as full payment.
Q30. Mr. Litman's counsel Mark Scully told the arbitration panel that the $694,478.67 was "based on a spreadsheet the firm recently concocted by guesswork" and that the true amount owed exceeded $1,250,000. Did you respond to that claim with a competing calculation?
Exhibit: Scully correspondence (sent items hits thread); Green letter follow-up
Trap: He will say the arbitration addressed it. Ask: "Did the arbitrator specifically rule on the accuracy of the $694K calculation, or on the question of whether the arbitration was premature?" The arbitration concerned whether a breach had occurred — not whether $694K was the correct total. If he conflates the two, press him.
Q31. You signed the Amendment to Agreement on May 7, 2017 — correct?
Exhibit: Amendment to Agreement, signature page (NYSCEF public record)
Trap: He must confirm. It is a public court record filed on NYSCEF by his own counsel.
Q32. The Amendment transfers to NGM: LLO stock, telephone numbers, approximately 25 domain names including 4patent.com, USPTO Customer Numbers 24396 and 37833, and two bank accounts. Is that a complete list of what was transferred?
Exhibit: Amendment to Agreement, Paragraphs 2-3 (asset transfer provisions)
Trap: He will likely say yes. Then: "Where in the Amendment does it authorize NGM to list 'Richard C. Litman' as attorney of record on patent filings made after June 15, 2020?" There is no such provision.
Q33. The Amendment contains no provision authorizing NGM to use your name — Richard C. Litman — on patent filings, Powers of Attorney, trademark dockets, or client correspondence after termination. Is that correct?
Exhibit: Amendment to Agreement (complete text); AMENDMENT_ANALYSIS_FOR_UNCLE.html Section 2
Trap: If he says the consent is implied from other provisions, ask him to read aloud the specific language he relies on. There is none. The "entire agreement" clause in Paragraph 6 forecloses any implied consent argument.
Q34. On April 22, 2021 — almost a year after the termination date — you wrote in an 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." Did you write that?
Exhibit: April 22, 2021 Goldberg email
Trap: He must authenticate it. Then: "So as of April 2021, you understood the Agreement did not cover trademark rights. Did it also not cover the right to use Mr. Litman's personal name on patent filings?" The admission that the Agreement is silent on trademark rights is the admission that it is silent on personal-name use.
Q35. You filed an Order to Show Cause asking the court to seal the Amendment. You then withdrew that motion but did not withdraw the exhibits. The Amendment is now a public NYSCEF record. Did you try to seal it because you believed it was damaging to your defense?
Exhibit: NYSCEF OSC filing and withdrawal records
Trap: If he says no, ask why he sought sealing. If he gives a different reason, ask whether the document contains any provision that would help his defense — because if it helped him, sealing would be against his interest.
Q36. The Amendment — Paragraph 3(h) — grants Mr. Litman a perpetual, royalty-free license to use the email address litman@4patent.com. You agreed to that term when you signed the Amendment. Correct?
Exhibit: Amendment to Agreement, Paragraph 3(h); AMENDMENT_ANALYSIS_FOR_UNCLE.html Section 4
Trap: He must confirm. The license is in writing, signed by him. "Perpetual" and "royalty-free" are the exact words. This is his contract, in his handwriting.
Q37. On July 17, 2025, Mr. Litman told you: "I am not waiting and will get a litigator." The following day — July 18, 2025 — access to litman@4patent.com and rlitman@nathlaw.com was eliminated. Is that sequence accurate?
Exhibit: July 17-18, 2025 text message exchange (iCloud photo IMG screenshots); AMENDMENT_ANALYSIS_FOR_UNCLE.html timeline table
Trap: He will likely say the timing was coincidental or that IT handled it. Ask: "Did you instruct IT to disable those accounts on July 18?" If he says no, ask who did and whether he has ever investigated. If he says yes, he has admitted breach of the perpetual license on the day after a litigation threat.
Q38. On July 18, 2025 at 4:30 PM, you texted Mr. Litman: "It should be. Let me find out from IT what happened." Have you ever restored his access?
Exhibit: July 18, 2025 text message (iCloud screenshot); March 18, 2026 Litman email to Gould: "I can't really send or receive email to litman@4patent.com"
Trap: He will say no — he never restored it. Ask: "And the perpetual license in the Amendment is still in force — you have never obtained Mr. Litman's written agreement to terminate it?" Correct — there is no termination document. He breached a perpetual contract and acknowledged it.
Q39. On September 2, 2025 — 46 days after Mr. Litman's access was eliminated — an account in the name "Joshua Goldberg" was registered on OpenGov's procurement platform using the email address litman@4patent.com. Did you register that account?
Exhibit: OpenGov registration record, September 2, 2025; AMENDMENT_ANALYSIS_FOR_UNCLE.html Section 4
Trap: If he says yes, he has admitted he personally took over an email address he knew was licensed to Litman. If he says no or he does not recall, ask: "If the account was registered in your name, who else would have registered it?" His name is on the registration. The email address he used was licensed to Litman under the Amendment.
Q40. Your counsel Aaron Gould wrote on March 17, 2026: "your access to your two NGM e-mail accounts has never been revoked." Mr. Litman's access was eliminated on July 18, 2025. How do you reconcile those two statements?
Exhibit: Gould letter March 17, 2026; July 18, 2025 Goldberg text: "Let me find out from IT what happened"; Litman reply March 18, 2026: "I can't really send or receive email"
Trap: He cannot reconcile them. His own text message acknowledges the access issue. His lawyer's claim that it was "never revoked" is contradicted by Goldberg's own words. This goes to the credibility of both Goldberg and his litigation counsel.
Q41. Martha Long was an employee of your firm who communicated with clients on patent matters — correct?
Exhibit: Multiple Martha Long emails in the record
Trap: Establishing foundation. He must confirm her role and that her communications were authorized firm activity.
Q42. Martha Long sent emails to prospective clients stating: "I have worked with Richard Litman for 27 years." Did you authorize her to use Mr. Litman's name in that manner to attract new clients?
Exhibit: Martha Long "27 years" solicitation emails (APPLE_MAIL_EVIDENCE_MEMO.md; evidence corpus)
Trap: If he says yes, he has admitted authorizing commercial use of Litman's name for client solicitation — a direct § 51 "purposes of trade" use. If he says no, he has admitted a pattern of unauthorized name use within his own firm that he failed to stop.
Q43. On September 30, 2024, you sent an email stating that "the previous attorney still attorney of record." Who were you referring to, and what did you mean by that?
Exhibit: September 30, 2024 Goldberg email
Trap: He will say he was referring to the official USPTO record. Ask: "And you sent this communication to a client to explain the continuation of the relationship using Mr. Litman's attorney-of-record status — is that correct?" This is a client-facing use of Litman's name for commercial purposes.
Q44. Your firm operated approximately 50 email aliases at the domain 4patent.com — a domain you received from Mr. Litman under the Amendment — including aliases dedicated to KFU, KSU, KISR, Kuwait University, UAEU, and others. These aliases collectively handled 205,597 email records. Were you aware of the scope of this operation?
Exhibit: 4PATENT_ALIAS_DEFINITIVE_COUNTS.md; 4PATENT_CLIENT_ALIAS_INFRASTRUCTURE.md; DKIM records pointing to nathlaw.onmicrosoft.com
Trap: If he says yes, he has admitted knowing that his firm was using a domain bearing Litman's name as the entire infrastructure for Middle East client communications. If he says no, ask how 205,597 emails were routed through a domain in his control without his knowledge.
Q45. You personally signed 16 Powers of Attorney — each listing Richard C. Litman as attorney of record — after June 15, 2020. Did you sign those documents?
Exhibit: POA_GOLDBERG_SIGNATURE_TABLE.md; the 16 individual POA PDFs (Reg. 44126 signature confirmed by OCR)
Trap: He must confirm his signature. Registration number 44126 is his. Then: "Each of those Powers of Attorney was filed with the USPTO, causing Litman's name to appear as attorney of record on a pending patent application — correct?"
Q46. The most recent Power of Attorney you signed listing Mr. Litman's name was dated January 17, 2025 — more than four and a half years after the termination date and more than 18 months after the arbitration decision. Why did you sign a POA listing Mr. Litman's name in January 2025?
Exhibit: January 17, 2025 POA (most recent in POA_GOLDBERG_SIGNATURE_TABLE.md)
Trap: Any answer is useful. If he says it was a system default, he admits the system was set to automatically use Litman's name — which he controlled and never changed. If he says it was required by the client, ask for the client instruction. There is none.
Q47. On December 21, 2023 — more than a year after the arbitration decision — you signed both the Power of Attorney for KFU Application 18/392,663 AND the KFU assignment cover sheet, both listing Mr. Litman's name, on the same day. Is that correct?
Exhibit: USPTO assignment records for App 18/392,663 (December 21, 2023); POA for same application; PART 4 of 694K_WIRE_TRACE_AND_NAME_USE_ANALYSIS.md
Trap: He cannot claim inadvertence. Two separate documents, signed by the same hand, on the same day, both bearing Litman's name — post-arbitration, post-termination. Ask: "On December 21, 2023, you made a deliberate choice to list Mr. Litman's name on two documents you signed personally — correct?"
Q48. (corrected 2026-04-26 — anchor moved from January 2025 eGrant flip to the underlying June 2024 Box-2 decision flip; see output/SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md.) Between June 5 and June 12, 2024, NGM caused the field that controls the WIPO INID (74) "Attorney, Agent or Firm" line on the printed front page of issued U.S. patents — Box 2 Line 2 of Form PTOL-85 Part B — to flip from typing "Richard C. Litman" to typing "Joshua B. Goldberg." On June 5, 2024, James Lafave (Reg. No. 71013) signed two PTOL-85Bs typing "Richard C. Litman" in Box 2 Line 2: U.S. Patent No. 12,116,333 (App. No. 18/511,800) and Design Patent No. D1,046,141 (App. No. 29/746,671). Seven days later, on June 12, 2024, Mr. Lafave signed the PTOL-85B for U.S. Patent No. 12,060,336 (App. No. 18/624,045) typing "Joshua B. Goldberg" in the same Box 2 Line 2 — under the same /James Lafave/ S-signature, the same Reg. No. 71013, the same NGM Deposit Account 14-0112, the same Customer No. 37833, and the same Box 2 Line 1 ("Nath, Goldberg & Meyer"). The only field that changed in those seven days was the name in Box 2 Line 2. What prompted that Box-2 decision flip?
Exhibit: evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_12116333_18511800_2024-06-05.pdf; evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_D1046141_29746671_2024-06-05.pdf; evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_12060336_18624045_2024-06-12.pdf; output/SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md; output/POST_SOL_LITMAN_PATENTS_PTOL85B_SIGNERS.md. Downstream eGrant issuance flip exhibit (public-publication boundary): output/POST_20250114_NGM_PATENTS.csv; USPTO Patent Grant XML for U.S. Patent No. 12,194,434 (issued 1/14/2025, last Litman-named NGM eGrant) and U.S. Patent No. 12,201,650 (issued 1/21/2025, first Goldberg-named post-flip eGrant).
Trap: He will struggle to explain the precision of the seven-day Box-2 flip. Ask: "If it was always permissible for an NGM-registered practitioner to type your name in Box 2 Line 2 of a PTOL-85B, why did you wait until June 2024 — more than four years after the termination date of June 15, 2020 — to direct Mr. Lafave to do so?" Then: "Identify every person at NGM who instructed Mr. Lafave to make that change between June 5 and June 12, 2024." The 276,000-document email production contains no responsive instruction email — supporting an inference of oral instruction concealed from contemporaneous written record. The June 2024 decision moment is the controlling anchor; the January 2025 eGrant boundary (Patent 12,194,434 → 12,201,650) is the downstream public-issuance consequence seven months later.
Q48A. Did Mr. Litman ever provide you, NGM, or Mr. Lafave with WRITTEN authorization — by letter, email, signed agreement, internal memorandum, or otherwise — to type his name in Box 2 Line 2 of any PTOL-85B form (the field that controls publication on the WIPO INID (74) line of an issued U.S. patent)?
Exhibit: None — no responsive writing has been produced in 276,000 documents.
Trap: A bar-account analog: a state bar's attorney-of-record listing or a credentialed-login system cannot be modified without written authorization from the named individual. The (74) front-page field of an issued U.S. patent is regulated identically — it publishes a registered practitioner's name on a federally issued, permanently public, internationally indexed government instrument. If yes, produce the writing. If no, every Litman-elected PTOL-85B in the post-7/21/2024 grant tail is an unconsented use.
Q48B. Why did Mr. Lafave file two PTOL-85Bs on June 5, 2024 — for U.S. Patent No. 12,116,333 and Design Patent D1,046,141 — both with "Richard C. Litman" in Box 2 Line 2, and then file a third PTOL-85B seven days later on June 12, 2024 — for U.S. Patent No. 12,060,336 — with "Joshua B. Goldberg" in the same field, under the same registration number and same deposit account?
Exhibit: Three PTOL-85B PDFs above.
Trap: Same signer, same Reg. No., same firm Box 2 Line 1, same Deposit Account, same Customer No. — the only variable is the typed name. He cannot attribute the change to a system default. He must either name the instructor or claim no knowledge — supporting either personal direction or willful supervisory failure under 37 CFR §§ 11.101, 11.103.
Q49. Each file wrapper for a patent listing Mr. Litman as attorney of record contains an average of 32 documents bearing his name — filing receipts, notices of allowance, office actions, powers of attorney, issue notifications, and other USPTO correspondence. Across 905 patents, that is approximately 28,870 documents. Were you aware that each filing generated a new document bearing Mr. Litman's name?
Exhibit: 694K_WIRE_TRACE_AND_NAME_USE_ANALYSIS.md Part 3 (name-use multiplier table)
Trap: If he says yes, he had actual knowledge of the scope of name use. If he says no, ask: "As the managing partner responsible for filing all 16 Powers of Attorney, were you unaware that each filing generated a receipt bearing Mr. Litman's name?" Actual knowledge is not required for § 51 liability, but his answer establishes either knowledge or willful ignorance.
Q50. Your firm generated a Payment Allocation Report for July 2025. When was that report generated?
Exhibit: July 2025 PAR (metadata showing generation date August 11, 2025)
Trap: If he says August 11, 2025, he has confirmed the document existed in his system 24 days after the July 18 email elimination and within weeks of the June 2025 litigation trigger. If he does not know when it was generated, ask who does and why that person was not disclosed in discovery.
Q51. The July 2025 Payment Allocation Report was generated on August 11, 2025. Mr. Litman first received it in April 2026 through your litigation counsel. What happened to it during those approximately eight months?
Exhibit: July 2025 PAR generation date metadata; April 2026 production cover letter from Connell Foley
Trap: He will say counsel handled production. Ask: "Were you asked during discovery to produce all Payment Allocation Reports? Did you provide the July 2025 report to your counsel when asked?" If yes, why was it not produced sooner? If no, he has admitted withholding responsive documents from his own counsel.
Q52. You have produced Payment Allocation Reports for October 2023 through June 2025 — 21 months. You have not produced reports for July, August, or September 2025. Do those reports exist?
Exhibit: MONTHLY_FEE_CREDIT_TIMESERIES_2023-10_TO_2025-06.csv; discovery response identifying produced PARs
Trap: If he says yes, ask why they were not produced. If he says they do not exist, ask when your firm stopped generating monthly payment allocation reports and why, given that the obligation to account to Litman continued through June 2025 (and potentially longer under extension provisions).
Q53. You produced the Amendment to Agreement in March 2026. That document is a signed contract from May 2017 that has been in your possession continuously. Why was it not produced at the outset of this litigation in 2025?
Exhibit: Amendment to Agreement; NYSCEF filing date history; AMENDMENT_ANALYSIS_FOR_UNCLE.html Section 6 (Goldberg's own mistake — filed publicly then tried to seal)
Trap: He will say he did not understand it was responsive, or that counsel made the production decisions. Ask: "Did you tell your counsel about the existence of the Amendment when you first retained them?" The Amendment is the governing contract for this entire dispute. Failure to disclose it immediately is a production failure at minimum, and potentially a violation of litigation hold obligations.
Q54. Between October 2023 and June 2025, you personally received fee credits totaling at least $256,390 on matters where Mr. Litman is listed as the responsible lawyer in Soluno. Is that figure consistent with your records?
Exhibit: EGREGIOUS_ACCOUNTING_BY_CLIENT_KFU_KSU_KISR.md Appendix B (month-by-month breakdown); October 2024 entry showing $200,749 Goldberg credit
Trap: If he disputes the figure, ask him to identify the actual total of his personal fee credits on Litman-responsible matters during that period. His own firm's records establish the amounts month by month.
Q55. In October 2024 alone — a month when KFU generated $992,943 in firm revenue — you credited yourself $200,749 in fee credits on Litman-originated work while crediting Mr. Litman $570,425. In the same month, $0 was credited to Mr. Litman for KFU trust-account receipts under Account 36372. How do you explain that discrepancy?
Exhibit: October 2024 PAR (APPENDIX B table in EGREGIOUS_ACCOUNTING_BY_CLIENT_KFU_KSU_KISR.md); KFU trust account 36372 records for October 2024
Trap: The PAR reflects Soluno billing credits; the trust account reflects actual cash received. The gap between the two is the diversion mechanism. Ask: "Which number — the PAR credit or the trust receipt — determines what Mr. Litman is actually paid?"
Q56. On June 13, 2025 — two days after your admission that KFU ledgers were blank — you wrote that you would send "a second wire to make up any shortfall." Has that second wire ever been sent?
Exhibit: IMG_1415.PNG (June 13, 2025 "second wire" email)
Trap: The wire was never sent. This is a written promise made on June 13, 2025, in the middle of active litigation correspondence. Ask: "How much would that 'second wire' have been for?" He cannot answer without conceding the amount owed. If he claims it was sent, demand the wire confirmation.
End of Deposition Question Set — 56 Questions Total
| Exhibit Ref | Document | Topics |
|---|---|---|
| IMG_1416.PNG | June 11, 2025 Goldberg email — blank trust ledgers | Q6 |
| IMG_1417.PNG | June 11, 2025 Goldberg email — "I need to figure out why" | Q7 |
| IMG_1415.PNG | June 13, 2025 Goldberg email — "second wire to make up shortfall" | Q56 |
| IMG_1419.PNG | March 8, 2021 Goldberg email — "amounts we owe to you... set aside in trust" | KSU background |
| IMG_0700-0702 | April 2024 text messages — "$156,010.50 received," "$10K less than indicated" | Payment trace |
| $1,437,568.00.jpg | December 21, 2022 KSU wire transfer slip | Q10 |
| Soluno correction entry (Mar 19, 2024) | $1,000 underrecording of $595,214 KFU wire | Q4 |
| Transfer vs Credit Reconciliation.csv | 69 uncredited trust-to-operating transfers | Q5, Q8 |
| KFU_KSU_RECONCILIATION_DETAIL.csv | 326 KSU dockets — 224 at $0 | Q14 |
| April 4, 2023 Martha Long email | "Pending Josh's approval" — KSU transfer | Q15 |
| December 30, 2024 Valencia Gray / Goldberg email | "Yes, that remaining 15% should be written off" | Q21 |
| Green letter (Dec 27, 2022) | "underwater" offset theory | Q27-Q29 |
| Litman 2025 Summary_December_.xlsx | NGM's cumulative $694K calculation | Q26, Q30 |
| Amendment to Agreement (NYSCEF) | All provisions — transfer assets, perpetual license, Revenue definition | Q31-Q35, Q36, Q42 |
| April 22, 2021 Goldberg email | "Agreement does not mention trademark rights" | Q34 |
| July 18, 2025 text messages | Email elimination acknowledgment | Q37-Q38 |
| OpenGov registration (Sept 2, 2025) | "Joshua Goldberg" at litman@4patent.com | Q39 |
| Gould letter (March 17, 2026) | "access never revoked" claim | Q40 |
| POA_GOLDBERG_SIGNATURE_TABLE.md | 16 POAs signed by Goldberg post-6/15/2020 | Q45-Q46 |
| USPTO Assignment records App 18/392,663 | December 21, 2023 bombshell — dual signing | Q47 |
| IFEE_12116333_18511800_2024-06-05.pdf | Last "Litman" PTOL-85B (Box 2 Line 2 = "Richard C. Litman"); Lafave/71013/14-0112/37833 | Q48, Q48B |
| IFEE_D1046141_29746671_2024-06-05.pdf | Tied last-day "Litman" PTOL-85B (Design); same Lafave/71013/14-0112/37833 | Q48, Q48B |
| IFEE_12060336_18624045_2024-06-12.pdf | First "Goldberg" PTOL-85B (Box-2 decision-flip anchor; switchover anchor exhibit) | Q48, Q48B |
| SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md | Canonical memo on the 6/5–6/12/2024 Box-2 decision flip | Q48 |
| POST_SOL_LITMAN_PATENTS_PTOL85B_SIGNERS.md | 12-form post-SOL Litman-election PTOL-85B table | Q48, Q48B |
| POST_20250114_NGM_PATENTS.csv | Downstream eGrant issuance flip (1/14/2025 → 1/21/2025) — public-publication boundary | Q48 |
| July 2025 PAR (generated Aug 11, 2025) | 8-month suppression | Q50-Q51 |
| October 2024 PAR | Goldberg $200,749 personal credit vs. KFU trust $0 | Q55 |
Prepared from defendant-produced documents, iCloud photo evidence, USPTO records, and NYSCEF filings. All amounts are from documents in the litigation record.