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. Surviving Claim: Count V -- NY Civil Rights Law Sections 50-51 (Misappropriation of Name) Prepared: March 27, 2026 Purpose: Map every verified admission to the specific statutory element it proves. All quotations are exact. All document references are to materials in evidence or producible from the record.
NY Civil Rights Law Section 51 provides a cause of action where a person's "name, portrait, picture or voice" is used "for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade" "without... written consent." Section 50 makes such use a misdemeanor and requires "written consent first obtained."
Five elements must be established:
| Admission | Source (Exact Cite) | Exhibit Reference | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Defendant admits only that Plaintiff's name appeared on the front page of patents issued to Plaintiff's originated clients after June 15, 2020" | Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65), Para. 32 | Court filing, verified answer | Goldberg concedes under oath that Litman's name appeared on patent front pages after 6/15/2020. This admission establishes the "use of name" element as a matter of law. No factual dispute remains. |
| "Plaintiff's name and biography appeared on NGM's website after June 15, 2020" | Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65), Para. 32 | Court filing, verified answer | Concedes a second channel of name use -- the firm website -- separate from patent records. |
| "Defendant admits that Plaintiff's name appeared on the front page of patents issued to his originated clients, and on NGM's website." | Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65), Para. 72 (Count V response) | Court filing, verified answer | Repeats the Para. 32 admission specifically under Count V, the surviving claim. This locks the admission to the operative cause of action. |
| Goldberg signed 16 of 19 examined PTO/AIA/82A Power of Attorney transmittals, each appointing Customer Number 37833, which caused Litman's name to appear on the resulting patents (Line 74). | POA PDFs from USPTO API; OCR verification. See evidence/poa_pdfs/ and output/POA_GOLDBERG_SIGNATURE_TABLE.md |
POA PDF exhibits (16 separate documents); exemplar: evidence/poa_pdfs/POA_11952371_18383448_2023-10-24.pdf (clearest signature image) |
Each POA signature is a personal act by Goldberg that directly caused Litman's name to appear on a U.S. patent -- a public government record. |
| Nathlaw.com displayed "RICHARD C. LITMAN, PATENT ATTORNEY" through at least June 21, 2025. | Wayback Machine capture, June 21, 2025 (nathlaw.com/richard-c-litman/) | evidence/website/nathlaw_richard_litman_profile_2025-06-21.png |
Website use continued more than 5 years after 6/15/2020, more than 2 years after arbitration. |
| 905 issued U.S. patents list "Richard C. Litman" in the Attorney, Agent, or Firm field (Line 74) since June 15, 2020. | USPTO PatentsView database export | richard_litman_attorney_issued_patents_since_2020-06-15.csv (905 records) |
Establishes the scale of the name use: 905 separate government publications. |
| "I.e., can you be an ACTIVE Senior Counsel while on disability?" | Text Messages p.14 (1/30/2023) | Text message exhibit, 51 pages | Goldberg acknowledges Litman was being listed as active -- confirming the name use and linking it to Litman's professional title. The question implies Goldberg knew the "active" designation was being applied. |
| "I am fine with you being considered as 'Senior Counsel'" | Text Messages p.14 (1/30/2023) | Text message exhibit, 51 pages | Goldberg explicitly approves continued use of Litman's professional title. This is a direct admission that Goldberg controlled whether and how Litman's name/title was used. |
| "KFU is winding up with 631 patents this year" | Text Messages p.38 (12/23/2024) | Text message exhibit, 51 pages | Confirms massive volume of patent filings under Litman's name. 631 KFU patents in a single year -- each bearing Litman's name on Line 74. |
| Litman raises "use of my name" -- Goldberg does not respond. | Text Messages p.47 (6/13-16/2025) | Text message exhibit, 51 pages | Litman confronts Goldberg about name use; Goldberg's silence is a party-opponent's adoptive admission under CPLR 4547. A reasonable person would deny unauthorized use if the use were legitimate. |
| Goldberg signed professional liability insurance application listing Litman as "OC" (Of Counsel) on the Schedule of Attorneys. | Scottsdale Insurance Company, Policy No. FJS0001424, signed July 6, 2021 | Professional Liability Policy exhibit | A third channel of name use beyond patents and the website. Goldberg represented to a regulated insurer that Litman was associated with the firm -- more than a year after the June 15, 2020 termination date. |
| Goldberg authenticates POA forms and transmittal letters under oath in federal court. | Declaration of Joshua B. Goldberg in Support of Defendant's Motion for Sanctions, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK (separate from DN 25 PI opposition) | Federal court filing (sworn) | By authenticating the POAs under oath, Goldberg confirms the documents that caused Litman's name to appear on patents are genuine and that he is aware of their contents. |
| Goldberg authenticates all 6 exemplar patents' POA transmittals, application transmittals, and IDS forms under oath (Exhibit A). Each bears his signature /Joshua B. Goldberg/ Reg. 44126, designating CN-37833. | Declaration of Joshua B. Goldberg in Support of Defendant's Motion for Sanctions, Exhibit A, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK (separate from DN 25 PI opposition) | Federal court filing (sworn) | Eliminates any future authenticity objection. Goldberg cannot challenge the genuineness of the very documents he authenticated under oath in federal court. This locks in the POA evidence as established fact. |
| Taif University: New client onboarded January 2025 using CN-37833 POA template -- same pipeline that generated 905 Litman-named patents. | Taif University POA filing, January 2025 | POA filing exhibit | A new client was being onboarded through the identical CN-37833 mechanism as recently as January 2025. This proves the name-use pipeline was active and expanding -- not winding down -- at the time of the downstream eGrant issuance flip (Jan 14-21, 2025), seven months after the underlying June 5-12, 2024 PTOL-85B Box-2 decision flip. (corrected 2026-04-26 — see output/SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md.) |
| 453 open matters listing "RL" as responsible attorney on June 16, 2025. | WIP Detailed Report, June 16, 2025 | Exhibit __, WIP Detailed Report, June 16, 2025 | Five months after the downstream eGrant issuance flip on the (74) line (1/14-1/21/2025) — and approximately twelve months after the underlying 6/5-6/12/2024 PTOL-85B Box-2 decision flip — 453 matters still carried Litman's name as the responsible attorney in the firm's billing system. The name use was ongoing across internal firm records even after it was removed from patent front pages. (corrected 2026-04-26 — see output/SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md.) |
| PI OPPOSITION: "The parties' practice was also to include Plaintiff along with NGM as counsel for any matters for originated clients, including within filings and client communications because of the revenue share." | Defendant's Opposition to PI, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK, filed Oct. 10, 2025 (Connell Foley LLP) | Federal court filing | JUDICIAL ADMISSION through counsel. Goldberg's own lawyers told a federal court that the name use was a deliberate "practice" applied to "filings and client communications." This confirms the name use was systematic, not incidental, and that Goldberg caused it. Cannot be withdrawn. |
| PI OPPOSITION: "NGM agreed with Plaintiff that he would continue to be listed as a Senior Counsel at the firm because of the parties' agreement to share revenue from originated clients." | Defendant's Opposition to PI, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK, filed Oct. 10, 2025 (Connell Foley LLP) | Federal court filing | Admits the continued listing was deliberate and tied to revenue. Confirms both the name use and its commercial motivation. |
| PI OPPOSITION: "Plaintiff's biography no longer appears on NGM's website." | Defendant's Opposition to PI, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK, filed Oct. 10, 2025 (Connell Foley LLP) | Federal court filing | Concedes the biography WAS previously on the website -- corroborating Answer Para. 32 and Wayback Machine evidence. The past tense confirms the historical name use. |
| PI OPPOSITION: "NGM has ceased listing Plaintiff as counsel on its communications." | Defendant's Opposition to PI, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK, filed Oct. 10, 2025 (Connell Foley LLP) | Federal court filing | Admits NGM previously DID list Litman as counsel on communications. The word "ceased" confirms prior use and confirms Goldberg/NGM controlled the listing. |
| Hashtag Sports trademark letter signed "Richard C. Litman" (July 24, 2025) -- cease-and-desist / trademark enforcement letter sent to Hashtag Sports LLC regarding TM Reg. 4,697,459. | Email archive (producible) | Trademark evidence exhibit | Latest confirmed name use -- July 24, 2025. Sent 3 days after the lawsuit was filed (7/21/2025) and 39 days after Litman's June 10, 2025 demand to remove his name. Proves name use continued even after litigation commenced. A trademark enforcement letter sent under Litman's name is a quintessential "use" -- it exercises Litman's professional authority and reputation to threaten legal action. |
| Exhibit F to Federal Complaint -- "Use of Richard Litman's name after 2020" (exhaustive compilation). | Litman v. Nath, EDNY 1:25-cv-04048, Exhibit F to Complaint | Federal court filing | Master inventory of Element 1 uses annexed to the federal complaint. Catalogs the name use across patents, website, client communications, and trademark filings in a single exhibit. Serves as the omnibus Element 1 exhibit for the state-court MSJ. |
| Exhibit G to Federal Complaint -- KSU issued U.S. patent with Litman as attorney. | Litman v. Nath, EDNY 1:25-cv-04048, Exhibit G to Complaint | Federal court filing | A specific KSU-issued U.S. patent with Litman named as attorney of record, now authenticated as part of the federal court record. Institutional-client name use on Line 74, in the federal record. |
| Exhibit H to Federal Complaint -- KFU issued U.S. patent with Litman as attorney. | Litman v. Nath, EDNY 1:25-cv-04048, Exhibit H to Complaint | Federal court filing | A specific KFU-issued U.S. patent with Litman named as attorney of record, in the federal record. Combined with Finding #60 (KFU is the #1 university patent filer globally), establishes the magnitude of the KFU name-use pipeline. |
| Exhibit N to Federal Complaint -- HARDCORE trademark registration under Litman's name. | Litman v. Nath, EDNY 1:25-cv-04048, Exhibit N to Complaint | Federal court filing | A specific USPTO trademark registration issued under Litman's name. Fifth independent channel of name use (patents, website, insurance, client communications, trademark registrations). |
| RFA No. 2: Goldberg admits Litman "is an attorney concerned with the patent" whose name is on Line 74. | RFA Responses (Feb. 17, 2026, Connell Foley LLP) | RFA Response exhibit | While semantically denying the "Patent Attorney" label, Goldberg concedes the name use on Line 74 and provides the stated reason: Litman was "the attorney who originated the client for the Firm." |
| RFA No. 5: ADMITTED -- Customer Number 37833 associated with the patent. | RFA Responses (Feb. 17, 2026) | RFA Response exhibit | Confirms the mechanism: CN-37833 is the customer number that caused Litman's name to appear on patent records. |
| RFA No. 6: ADMITTED -- Firm employee received the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt. | RFA Responses (Feb. 17, 2026) | RFA Response exhibit | Confirms NGM controlled the filing process and received the official confirmations. Litman did not. |
| NGM admits: "Only NGM attorneys have submitted Power of Attorney forms authorizing them to act on behalf of the clients." | NGM Federal Sanctions Brief, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK | Federal court filing | Concedes that NGM -- not Litman -- submitted every POA that caused Litman's name to appear on patents. |
| NGM admits Litman's name "does not appear" in Filer/Filer Authorized By fields. | NGM Federal Sanctions Brief, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK | Federal court filing | Proves Litman had no role in the filings bearing his name. NGM/Goldberg controlled all submissions. |
| Admission | Source (Exact Cite) | Exhibit Reference | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Mr. Litman could not perform the duties of his employment" | Goldberg's Post-Arbitration Brief (5/24/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Goldberg concedes Litman was unable to perform attorney duties -- yet Litman's name continued to appear on patents and the website as if he were an active attorney. |
| "Mr. Litman stopped performing his employment obligations" | Goldberg's Post-Arbitration Brief (5/24/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Goldberg admits Litman stopped working -- making every subsequent use of his name a use of a person who was no longer performing the role attributed to him. |
| "Goldberg and Meyer decided to cash flow NGM's operations off Litman's client revenues" | Litman's Amended Demand for Arbitration (12/23/2022) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Litman's characterization of the ongoing use of his client relationships -- and by extension his name -- as a revenue extraction strategy. |
Element 1 is admitted. Goldberg's verified answer concedes name use on patents and the website after 6/15/2020. No genuine factual dispute exists. The arbitration filings further confirm Goldberg knew Litman was not performing any attorney work, making the continued name use entirely attributable to Goldberg's unilateral decisions. Goldberg's PI Opposition (EDNY, Oct. 10, 2025) adds five judicial admissions through counsel confirming the name use was a deliberate "practice" applied to "filings and client communications" -- admissions that cannot be withdrawn. The latest confirmed name use is now July 24, 2025 (Hashtag Sports trademark letter signed "Richard C. Litman") -- 3 days after the lawsuit was filed, proving the name use continued even after litigation commenced.
| Admission | Source (Exact Cite) | Exhibit Reference | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goldberg admits he is "co-managing partner of Nath & Associates, d/b/a Nath, Goldberg & Meyer." | Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65), Para. 8 | Court filing, verified answer | Establishes Goldberg's position in the commercial enterprise that profited from the name use. NGM is a law firm operating for profit -- its activities are inherently commercial. |
| Trust ledger shows $32,708,669.08 in total receipts across 2,214 dockets, all marked "Introducing Lawyer: RL" (Richard Litman). $24,509,250.24 received post-6/15/2020. | Trust ledger dated June 26, 2025 (produced in discovery) | output/goldberg_financial_attachments/20250609_2ts_trust_ledger.csv |
Litman's name was attached to matters generating over $24.5 million in receipts after the SOL cutoff. This is not incidental mention -- it is the commercial backbone of the firm's patent prosecution business. |
| 95 JBG-directed transactions appear in the trust ledger on Litman-attributed dockets. | Trust ledger dated June 26, 2025 | Same as above | Goldberg personally directed financial transactions on matters attributed to Litman -- direct personal commercial benefit. |
| Website listing of Litman as "PATENT ATTORNEY" (not "Retired," not "Former") on a law firm's public website. | Wayback Machine capture, June 21, 2025 | evidence/website/nathlaw_richard_litman_profile_2025-06-21.png |
A law firm's website listing a named attorney is classic trade advertising. It implies the attorney is available and active, attracting clients. See Arrington v. New York Times, 55 N.Y.2d 433 (1982). |
| Consent defense (Affirmative Defense #10): "Plaintiff's claims are barred based on his implied and/or express consent." | Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65), Tenth Affirmative Defense | Court filing, verified answer | Defense-as-embedded-admission: Asserting that consent was required implicitly concedes the use was for a purpose that required authorization -- i.e., a commercial/trade purpose. If the use were merely incidental, consent would be irrelevant. |
| PI OPPOSITION: "Plaintiff represented it was in both parties' financial interest to do so." | Defendant's Opposition to PI, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK, filed Oct. 10, 2025 (Connell Foley LLP) | Federal court filing | JUDICIAL ADMISSION of commercial motive. Goldberg's own counsel told a federal court that the name use was "in both parties' financial interest" -- i.e., commercially motivated. This establishes the trade purpose element through Goldberg's own words. Cannot be withdrawn. |
| PI OPPOSITION: "The parties' practice was also to include Plaintiff along with NGM as counsel for any matters for originated clients, including within filings and client communications because of the revenue share." | Defendant's Opposition to PI, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK, filed Oct. 10, 2025 (Connell Foley LLP) | Federal court filing | The phrase "because of the revenue share" is a direct admission that the name use was commercially motivated. The name appeared on "filings and client communications" not for professional accuracy but for commercial advantage. |
| PI OPPOSITION: "NGM agreed with Plaintiff that he would continue to be listed as a Senior Counsel at the firm because of the parties' agreement to share revenue from originated clients." | Defendant's Opposition to PI, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK, filed Oct. 10, 2025 (Connell Foley LLP) | Federal court filing | Admits the listing was tied to "revenue from originated clients" -- explicitly linking the name use to the commercial relationship. |
| RFA No. 2: Goldberg admits name use was tied to fees. States the only basis for Litman's name on Line 74 was that Litman was "the attorney who originated the client for the Firm and who was, pursuant to his agreements with the Firm, entitled to a percentage of the Firm's attorney's fees received for the patent work completed for an originated client." | RFA Responses (Feb. 17, 2026, Connell Foley LLP) | RFA Response exhibit | Critical admission of commercial purpose. Goldberg's own words link the name use directly to fee generation. An attorney whose name appears because he originated the client and is entitled to a fee percentage is being used for trade purposes as a matter of law. |
| RFA No. 4: ADMITTED -- "the Firm collected legal fees for the professional services rendered for the patent" and Litman "received a percentage of the legal fees collected." | RFA Responses (Feb. 17, 2026) | RFA Response exhibit | Direct admission that the patent work bearing Litman's name generated legal fees and that those fees were shared -- confirming the commercial nature of the name use. |
| BOP Fifth Affirmative Defense: Admits "Plaintiff has received and is receiving compensation for collected fees for work completed for originated clients during the period of time from June 15, 2020 through June 15, 2025." | BOP Response (Feb. 26, 2026, Connell Foley LLP) | BOP Response exhibit | Concedes ongoing commercial compensation tied to Litman-originated matters during the entire statutory period. The present tense "is receiving" confirms the commercial relationship was continuous. |
| BOP Eighth Affirmative Defense: "NGM included Plaintiff's name on patents and on its website purely as a courtesy." | BOP Response (Feb. 26, 2026, Connell Foley LLP) | BOP Response exhibit | While intended as a defense, this admission confirms (a) the name inclusion was discretionary, not compelled; (b) NGM controlled the decision; and (c) the "courtesy" was extended in a commercial context (law firm patents and website). A "courtesy" that generates $24.5 million in fees is not incidental -- it is a commercial asset. |
| $16.2M accounting gap: Trust ledger shows $32,708,669 vs. Goldberg's Workup at $16,506,605. KFU and KSU show $0 in Goldberg's Revenue sheet despite being 84% of all payments. | Financial analysis of trust ledger vs. Goldberg Revenue Workup | Financial Analysis exhibit | Proves systematic underreporting of Litman-originated revenue, confirming the commercial magnitude of the name use. |
| Admission | Source (Exact Cite) | Exhibit Reference | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Nath & Associates paid Mr. Litman $694,478.67 -- his royalties owed to him during the first 2.5 years of the 5 year period" | Goldberg's Post-Arbitration Brief (5/24/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Goldberg admits NGM generated revenue from Litman-originated clients and paid royalties on it. The existence of royalties proves the name use was tied to commercial billings -- not incidental mention. |
| The Amendment states: "Upon termination... shall be paid deferred monetary compensation equal to twenty percent (20%) of the Revenue... from billings for services rendered to [LITMAN] Originated client during the five (5) years immediately following the termination" | Combination Agreement Amendment (Exhibit B to Goldberg's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 1/18/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | The 20% royalty on "Litman Originated client" billings proves that Litman's name and client relationships were the commercial engine of NGM's patent prosecution revenue. The agreement itself treats Litman's name/relationships as a revenue-generating asset. |
| NGM paid Litman $694,478.67 during first 2.5 years of 5-year period (confirming royalty arrangement) | Goldberg's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (1/18/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Confirms the quantified commercial value extracted from Litman-originated matters. $694K in royalties over 2.5 years implies roughly $3.47M in billings to Litman-originated clients during that period alone (at the 20% rate). |
| Describes KSU billing failure (~$500K not billed) | Litman's Amended Demand for Arbitration (12/23/2022) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Litman alleged NGM failed to bill approximately $500K owed by KSU -- reducing his royalty base while continuing to use his name on KSU patent filings. This shows the name use generated substantial billable work. |
| Describes firing of Litman's illustrator, outsourcing, deducting costs to reduce royalty base | Litman's Amended Demand for Arbitration (12/23/2022) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Goldberg restructured operations to minimize royalty payments while maintaining Litman's name on the work product -- extracting maximum commercial value from the name while minimizing compensation. |
| "They claimed baseless offsets against Litman's Royalty payments in the amount of the disability insurance payments" | Litman's Amended Demand for Arbitration (12/23/2022) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Further confirms the royalty arrangement tied to commercial revenue generated under Litman's name. The offset disputes prove the billings were substantial enough to fight over. |
| Actual invoice table with docket numbers (32087.xx, 33101.xx), attorney's fees, USPTO fees | KFU Invoices (10/5/2024) | KFU invoice records | Bridges docket numbers to specific dollar amounts billed to KFU under Litman's name. Proves the name use was directly tied to billable legal services -- the definition of "trade purpose." |
| Arbitrator characterized the 20% payments as "a royalty" -- "a payment made in exchange for a privilege, in this case the privilege of servicing the lucrative client base brought by Litman to NGM" | Arbitration Award (6/14/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | The arbitrator himself found that Litman's name/relationships constituted a "privilege" with commercial value. The word "royalty" connotes ongoing commercial exploitation of an asset -- here, Litman's professional identity. |
| "Litman Originated Client" defined as clients engaged "as a primary consequence of the efforts, reputation or other actions of LITMAN" | Arbitration Award (6/14/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | The formal definition ties Litman's "reputation" -- i.e., his professional name -- directly to the revenue stream. The clients existed because of Litman; using his name on their patents maintained the commercial relationship. |
| "KFU is winding up with 631 patents this year, we hit their goal of 600 for the year" | Text Messages p.38 (12/23/2024) | Text message exhibit, 51 pages | Goldberg celebrates commercial volume on Litman-originated client. 631 patents at typical USPTO prosecution fees represents millions in billings -- all under Litman's name. |
| Goldberg produced only 455 pages of insurance docs and SharePoint archive in discovery; stonewalled on all patent prosecution documents with "rolling basis" non-answers. | Goldberg Discovery Responses (02/26/2026, Connell Foley LLP) | court_filings/Goldberg_Discovery_Responses_2026-02-26.pdf |
Goldberg's refusal to produce patent prosecution documents is itself evidence of trade purpose -- the documents would show billing, revenue, and commercial use of Litman's name. Adverse inference appropriate under CPLR 3126. |
| Goldberg asserted attorney-client privilege over KSU prosecution documents -- questionable since Litman was attorney of record. | Goldberg Discovery Responses (02/26/2026, Connell Foley LLP) | court_filings/Goldberg_Discovery_Responses_2026-02-26.pdf |
Claiming privilege over documents where Litman is listed as attorney of record is paradoxical: Goldberg uses Litman's name to file the documents, then invokes privilege to hide them from Litman. This confirms the documents have commercial content Goldberg wants concealed. |
| Goldberg signed professional liability insurance application (premium $38,260) listing Litman as "OC" (Of Counsel). | Scottsdale Insurance Company, Policy No. FJS0001424, signed July 6, 2021 | Professional Liability Policy exhibit | Professional liability insurance is a direct cost of doing business. Listing Litman as "Of Counsel" affected the insurer's risk assessment and the $38,260 premium. This is a commercial use of Litman's name in a regulated financial transaction -- it directly affected NGM's operating expenses. |
| NGM Client List (generated by Goldberg 6/16/2025): 631 of 1,107 clients (57%) originated by Litman, 7,127 of 14,103 case files (50.5%). Litman assigned as attorney on 7,231 files -- more than Goldberg (3,001) and Meyer (2,476) combined. | NGM Client List Report, June 16, 2025 (generated by Goldberg) | Exhibit __, NGM Client List Report, June 16, 2025 | Goldberg's own firm-wide report proves the entire practice was commercially dependent on Litman's name and client relationships. A firm where one attorney accounts for 57% of all clients and more case files than the other two partners combined is using that attorney's name as its commercial engine. |
| WIP Detailed Report (6/16/2025): 453 matters still listing "RL" as responsible attorney, $1.29M in unbilled fees. Goldberg logged 4,063 time entries on these matters vs. Litman's 188. | WIP Detailed Report, June 16, 2025 | Exhibit __, WIP Detailed Report, June 16, 2025 | Proves Goldberg performed the substantive work while maintaining Litman's billing attribution. The 22:1 ratio of Goldberg's time entries to Litman's on Litman-attributed matters is direct evidence of commercial exploitation -- the name stayed because it was commercially valuable, not because Litman was doing the work. |
| 2025 Accounts Receivable: $1,464,572 billed in 2025, $990,089 outstanding as of June 2025 -- 100% from Litman-originated clients. KSU alone owes $733,302. | 2025 Accounts Receivable records | Exhibit __, 2025 Accounts Receivable | All 2025 billings and outstanding receivables are attributable to Litman-originated clients. The firm had no significant revenue source independent of Litman's name and client relationships. |
| Post-lawsuit trust activity: October 2025 = $1,334,194 (including $990,172 KSU wire), November 2025 = $501,504, December 2025 = $70,303 -- all coded "Resp: RL -- Richard Litman." | Trust Ledger Report, June 26, 2025 | Trust Ledger exhibit | Even after Litman filed suit to stop the unauthorized name use, NGM continued receiving and processing substantial client payments under Litman's name. The lawsuit filing did not interrupt the commercial exploitation. |
| Martha Long email (June 13, 2025): "Mr. Joshua spoke with the inventors" -- Goldberg directing patent prosecution while Litman's name remains on billing. | Martha Long email, June 13, 2025 | Email archive (producible) | Contemporaneous evidence that Goldberg was directing the substantive patent prosecution work ("spoke with the inventors") while Litman's name remained on the billing attribution. This is the trade purpose in action: Goldberg does the work, Litman's name generates the fees. |
| Martha Long "RCL origination credit" email -- internal NGM communication crediting Richard Litman as the origination source for new client intake. | Martha Long email, internal NGM correspondence | Email archive (producible) | Proves Litman's name and reputation continued to function as the firm's commercial engine for attracting and retaining clients. NGM's own internal records attribute client origination to Litman -- directly establishing that his name was being used as a trade asset to generate business. This is distinct from the "27 years" solicitation emails: it shows the firm's internal accounting treated Litman's name as a revenue-generating credit. |
| Exhibit J to Federal Complaint -- $1,437,568 KSU wire transfer (Dec. 22, 2022), Litman CC'd at rlitman@nathlaw.com. | Litman v. Nath, EDNY 1:25-cv-04048, Exhibit J to Complaint | Federal court filing | Single-transaction proof that massive client payments flowed into NGM on Litman-originated matters, with Litman's name/email identity still operational at the time of the transfer. A $1.4M wire transfer on a single KSU matter confirms the quantitative magnitude of the commercial benefit extracted under Litman's name. The CC to rlitman@nathlaw.com confirms Litman's email identity was still in use as part of the client-facing billing infrastructure. |
| $29,380,403.30 total Litman-Originated revenue (per Demand Letters 5, 6, 7). | Demand Letters 5, 6, 7 (pre-litigation correspondence) | Demand Letter exhibits | Largest single quantified commercial figure in the record. Aggregated total of firm-wide revenue derived from Litman-originated matters. Supplements the $18.53M, $24.5M, and $32.7M figures previously cataloged and provides a defensible numerator for the commercial exploitation analysis. |
| Exhibit I to Federal Complaint -- NGM's own "Updated Originated Clients List." | Litman v. Nath, EDNY 1:25-cv-04048, Exhibit I to Complaint | Federal court filing (defendant-produced list) | NGM's own internal document identifying the clients Goldberg attributes to Litman. A defendant-produced list naming the commercial relationships exploited through the unauthorized name use. Eliminates any defense argument that the scope of Litman-originated clients is in dispute -- NGM itself identified them in writing. |
Element 2 is supported by strong evidence and now by judicial admissions. The trust ledger proves commercial benefit quantitatively. The consent defense implicitly concedes the commercial nature of the use. Goldberg's PI Opposition (EDNY, Oct. 10, 2025) contains three judicial admissions through counsel establishing commercial purpose beyond dispute: the name use was "in both parties' financial interest," was motivated by "the revenue share," and NGM "agreed" to continue listing Litman "because of the parties' agreement to share revenue from originated clients." Anticipated defense argument -- that USPTO filings are required by regulation and therefore not "trade use" -- is rebutted by the PI Opposition admission that the name use extended to "client communications" (not just filings), by the website evidence (purely voluntary commercial advertising), and by the fact that Goldberg chose to continue listing Litman rather than substituting his own name, which NGM demonstrably could do (the firm's registered practitioner Mr. Lafave personally typed Goldberg's name on Box 2 Line 2 of the PTOL-85B for U.S. Patent No. 12,060,336 on June 12, 2024 — only seven days after twice typing Litman's name in the same field on June 5, 2024 — under the same /James Lafave/ S-signature, the same Reg. No. 71013, the same NGM Deposit Account 14-0112, and the same Customer No. 37833; the downstream eGrant issuance flip published seven months later on Line 74 between January 14 and January 21, 2025). (corrected 2026-04-26 — see output/SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md.)
| Admission | Source (Exact Cite) | Exhibit Reference | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asked to produce "the agreement, license, or consent form designated by Defendant as the basis for his authority to use Plaintiff's name on United States Patents issued after June 15, 2020." Produced nothing. Pointed only to "the Combination Agreements and Plaintiff's communications to Defendant requesting his continuing association with the NGM." | Discovery Response #1 (02/26/2026, Connell Foley LLP, Aaron H. Gould, Esq.) | court_filings/Goldberg_Discovery_Responses_2026-02-26.pdf |
De facto admission that no written consent document exists. When asked point-blank for a consent document, Goldberg produced none. The Combination Agreement transferred the "Litman Law Offices, Ltd." service mark -- not personal name rights on government filings. |
| Litman email to Goldberg: "The assignment of the LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. mark does not include the right to use my name separate and apart from the mark. At this point, use of my name is not an issue because I am on the employee roster." | Email from Richard Litman to Joshua Goldberg, April 30, 2021 | Email archive (producible from 276K-email SharePoint production) | Litman explicitly told Goldberg in writing that the trademark assignment did not convey personal name rights. The only reason Litman did not object further in April 2021 was because he was still on the employee roster -- a condition that subsequently ended. This email destroys the Combination Agreement as a basis for consent. |
| Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment states: "Assignor owns his name, signature, voice, image, photograph or likeness" | Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment, USPTO Reel 007281, Frame 0821 | USPTO Assignment Center record; evidence/assignments/ |
Goldberg's own recorded document acknowledges Litman owns his own name. This directly contradicts Affirmative Defense #10 (consent). A party cannot record a document recognizing another's ownership of his name, then claim that party consented to the use. |
| "Defendant further denies that any alleged use of Plaintiff's name, identity, and/or reputation occurred without the consent of Plaintiff." | Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65), Para. 72 | Court filing, verified answer | Goldberg asserts consent but cannot produce a consent document. The denial is a bare assertion contradicted by (a) the absence of any written consent, (b) Litman's April 30, 2021 email expressly limiting name use, and (c) Goldberg's own Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment recognizing Litman's ownership. |
| RFA No. 7: Goldberg claims Combination Agreements ARE written consent for Line 74 listings. | RFA Responses (Feb. 17, 2026, Connell Foley LLP) | RFA Response exhibit | Goldberg now formally identifies the Combination Agreements as his claimed source of consent. But neither agreement contains any provision addressing Line 74, patent front pages, Power of Attorney filings, or personal name use on government documents. This response fails to identify any actual written consent. See COMBINATION AGREEMENT / AMENDMENT ANALYSIS section. |
| BOP Eighth Affirmative Defense: Name use was "purely as a courtesy." | BOP Response (Feb. 26, 2026, Connell Foley LLP) | BOP Response exhibit | DESTROYS the contractual authorization argument. If the name inclusion was "purely a courtesy," it was discretionary -- not authorized by the Combination Agreements. Goldberg cannot simultaneously claim the Agreements authorized the use (RFA #7) and that the use was "purely a courtesy" (BOP #8). These positions are mutually exclusive. If it was a courtesy, there was no contractual right; if there was a contractual right, it was not a courtesy. |
| RFA Nos. 3 and 14: Goldberg "unable to admit or deny" whether he personally signed the POAs -- admits his e-signature appears but claims no recollection. | RFA Responses (Feb. 17, 2026) | RFA Response exhibit | A party's claimed inability to confirm or deny his own signature on federal government documents is not a denial of the underlying act. Combined with the Exhibit A authentication (where Goldberg authenticated these same documents under oath), this evasion is contradicted by Goldberg's own prior sworn conduct. |
| Federal Sanctions Brief: "Only NGM attorneys have submitted Power of Attorney forms." Litman's name "does not appear" in Filer/Filer Authorized By fields. | NGM Federal Sanctions Brief, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK | Federal court filing | Proves Litman did not submit the POAs and had no control over the filings. If Litman did not submit the documents, he cannot have consented to them by submitting them. The consent must come from somewhere else -- and Goldberg has not identified where. |
| Text messages cited by Goldberg regarding "Senior Counsel" status concern the WEBSITE -- not Line 74 patent listings. | Text Messages (51-page exhibit) cross-referenced with RFA Responses | Text message exhibit; RFA Response exhibit | Goldberg conflates two entirely different categories of name use. Litman's text messages about his "Senior Counsel" status on the website do not constitute consent to have his name placed on patent front pages. These are distinct uses requiring separate authorization under Section 50. |
| Tanya Harkins (NGM employee, Goldberg CC'd): "this is not Litman. I would have never worked for him and he doesn't work here anymore." | Email from Tanya Harkins to Martha Long, CC: Goldberg, Meyer, Thompson, May 21, 2021 | Email C2051472_ND0000270307.msg | A 20-year NGM employee confirms Litman was understood internally to no longer work at the firm by May 2021. Goldberg was CC'd -- actual notice. If Litman was gone, he could not be consenting to ongoing name use. Yet Goldberg signed POAs listing Litman for 3+ more years after this email. |
| 51 pages of text messages between Litman and Goldberg contain ZERO discussion of POA signatures -- Goldberg never informed Litman he was signing POAs listing Litman as attorney. | Text Messages (full 51-page exhibit) | Text message exhibit, 51 pages | Section 50 requires "written consent first obtained." Goldberg signed 16 POAs designating Litman as attorney of record without ever mentioning it in their extensive text communications. The absence of any discussion proves Litman was not informed, much less consenting. |
| "Litman's status as Senior Counsel with NGM ceased by agreement of the parties on June 15, 2020" | Arbitration Award (6/14/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | The arbitrator found as a matter of fact that Litman's status CEASED on 6/15/2020. If his professional status ended, there is no ongoing basis for consent to use his name in a professional capacity after that date. This is a binding factual finding. |
| FULL ARBITRATION AWARD: "Goldberg is not a party to the contracts." | Full Arbitration Award, NYSCEF Doc 34 | Court filing (arbitration award filed with NYSCEF) | DEVASTATING to consent defense. If Goldberg is not a party to the Combination Agreements, he cannot derive consent from them. The only contracts Goldberg identified as the basis for consent (Discovery Response No. 1) are contracts to which the arbitrator found he is not a party. A non-party to a contract cannot invoke that contract as authorization for his conduct. This also reinforces personal liability: if Goldberg acted outside any contractual framework, his use of Litman's name was a purely personal tortious act. |
| Parties agreed to treat Litman "as if he had died" for purposes of the agreement. | Arbitration Award (6/14/2023), citing Goldberg's 9/17/2020 email | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | A person treated "as if he had died" cannot consent to future use of his name. The estate analogy -- which Goldberg himself proposed -- means any post-6/15/2020 use required affirmative authorization that was never obtained. |
| EXHIBIT R -- CONTRACTUAL KILL-SHOT: Goldberg's signed, recorded asset-sale / trademark-assignment agreement expressly carved out Litman's "name, signature, voice, image, photograph or likeness." | Litman v. Nath, EDNY 1:25-cv-04048, Exhibit R to Complaint | Federal court filing (signed, recorded agreement) | DISPOSITIVE. Goldberg's own signed, recorded agreement excluded from the transfer the exact categories of personal-identity rights protected by Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51. The carve-out language tracks the § 50 / § 51 statutory text verbatim -- "name, signature, voice, image, photograph or likeness." By signing this agreement, Goldberg acknowledged in writing that those rights remained Litman's personal property -- and then proceeded to exploit the very rights he had carved out. This is the second Goldberg-signed / NGM-recorded document expressly disclaiming any transfer of Litman's name rights (the first being the Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment, Reel 007281 Frame 0821). Two independently recorded instruments, both signed or controlled by Goldberg, both recognizing Litman's ownership of his own name. Destroys the consent defense at its foundation. |
| Exhibit K to Federal Complaint -- June 7-8, 2020 emails showing Goldberg-Litman agreed to CONCEAL Litman's disability. | Litman v. Nath, EDNY 1:25-cv-04048, Exhibit K to Complaint | Federal court filing | The thread agrees to conceal the disability from clients and operations -- it does NOT authorize use of Litman's name for trade purposes. Concealment of disability and written name-use consent are legally distinct. Section 50 requires "written consent" to use the name; Exhibit K addresses only how to manage the disability's disclosure. The defense cannot recast a concealment agreement as a § 50 name-use license. |
| Amendment Section 3 -- Email license to litman@4patent.com, NOT a general name license. | Combination Agreement Amendment, Section 3 | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | The Amendment's Section 3 licenses specific email/domain infrastructure (litman@4patent.com; LitmanLaw.com; 4patent.com) -- an administrative email alias, not a personal name license. An email alias does not constitute written consent to place a person's name on federal patent front pages or on sworn trademark declarations. Reinforces the provision-by-provision audit: nothing in the Agreement or Amendment authorizes personal name use on government filings. |
| Admission | Source (Exact Cite) | Exhibit Reference | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goldberg argued the Combination Agreement terminated 6/15/2020 | Goldberg's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (1/18/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Critical: Goldberg took the sworn position in arbitration that the agreement terminated on 6/15/2020. If the agreement terminated, it cannot serve as the basis for consent to post-6/15/2020 name use. Goldberg cannot argue in arbitration that the agreement ended and then argue in state court that the same agreement authorizes post-termination name use. |
| Goldberg's email (9/17/2020): "I agree it would be cleanest to treat it like death, thereby instituting the five-year period starting 6/15/2020" | Goldberg email, September 17, 2020 (cited in Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 1/18/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Goldberg himself proposed treating the termination date as 6/15/2020. This is a party admission that any contractual authorization ended on that date. The "five-year period" refers to the royalty wind-down, not to continuing authority to use Litman's name. |
| The Combination Agreement (Exhibit A) and Amendment (Exhibit B) are the actual contracts | Exhibits to Goldberg's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (1/18/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | The actual contracts are now in the record. They can be analyzed to confirm they transfer only the "Litman Law Offices, Ltd." service mark -- not personal name rights on government filings. |
| "Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Meyer were not parties to the Combination Agreement, and owed no such duties to Claimant" | Goldberg's Reply to Motion to Dismiss (2/9/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Goldberg claimed he was not a party to the Combination Agreement. If he is not a party to the agreement, he cannot derive consent from it. This destroys the consent defense: either Goldberg is a party to the agreement (and it terminated 6/15/2020) or he is not a party (and has no contractual basis for consent at all). |
| Para. 5: "Goldberg, Meyer, and I never reached any agreement on the 'specifics' that were part of the 'framework' or the 'documentation' of the deal" | Litman's Sworn Declaration (2/2/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Litman swore under oath that no specifics were ever agreed upon regarding the termination framework -- undermining any claim that Litman consented to post-termination name use as part of a deal. |
| Para. 7: "We never resolved those issues and never reached an agreement on a 'termination date' for the Agreement. Plus, we never drafted any document to memorialize any amendment." | Litman's Sworn Declaration (2/2/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | No written amendment exists authorizing post-termination name use. Section 50 requires "written consent first obtained" -- sworn testimony confirms no such written document was ever created. |
| Para. 8: "The Combination Agreement was never terminated by notice under Paragraph 2." | Litman's Sworn Declaration (2/2/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Litman's sworn statement that no formal termination occurred under the agreement's own terms. Combined with Goldberg's position that the agreement terminated 6/15/2020 by operation of the disability provision, this means neither party claims the agreement was formally terminated with notice -- yet Goldberg treats it as both terminated (arbitration) and ongoing (consent defense). |
| "The Parties performed in accordance with termination for three years" | Goldberg's Post-Arbitration Brief (5/24/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Goldberg's own characterization of the post-6/15/2020 period as "termination." If the parties were performing in accordance with termination, the agreement had ended -- and with it, any consent it might have conferred. |
Element 3 is proven by the absence of evidence of consent combined with affirmative evidence of non-consent. Section 50 requires "written consent first obtained." Goldberg was asked to produce it and could not. Litman's April 2021 email affirmatively limits name-use authority. The Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment -- Goldberg's own document -- recognizes Litman's ownership of his name. The Full Arbitration Award (NYSCEF Doc 34) delivers the final blow: the arbitrator found "Goldberg is not a party to the contracts." If Goldberg is not a party to the Combination Agreements -- the only contracts he identified as the basis for consent (Discovery Response No. 1) -- he has no contractual basis for using Litman's name at all. The only remaining step is Litman's sworn declaration of non-consent (see Gaps section below).
| Admission | Source (Exact Cite) | Exhibit Reference | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Since we are the attorneys of record... Either a withdrawal of our Power of Attorney, or some other document transferring rights back to the inventor, needs to be filed..." | Goldberg email to Martha Long, January 17, 2023 | Email archive (producible) | Goldberg understood precisely how the POA mechanism controls attorney-of-record status. He knew a withdrawal could be filed. He chose not to file one for Litman -- for over 2 more years. This is knowing conduct. |
| "yes, it is fine to send the POA to the client after the application is filed..." | Goldberg email to Martha Long, June 19, 2023 (5 days after arbitration) | Email archive (producible) | Five days after the arbitration resolved the dispute over Litman's authority (ended 6/15/2020), Goldberg directed continued POA filings. This is willful conduct with full knowledge of the legal dispute. |
| "the previous attorney, apparently still the attorney of record according to the USPTO" | Goldberg email, September 30, 2024 | Email archive (producible) | Goldberg acknowledged in his own words that Litman remained "the attorney of record according to the USPTO" -- and he took no corrective action. This email, 15 months after arbitration, proves ongoing knowledge. |
| "The question all comes down to whether you will be an active employee vs. on disability/retired." | Goldberg email, March 15, 2022 | Email archive (producible) | Shows Goldberg recognized the distinction between active employment and disability/retirement -- yet continued signing POAs listing Litman as if he were an active attorney of record. |
| "if you are on disability, what would be considered legal vs. fraud? I don't want ANY of us having to face a fraud issue" | Text Messages p.14 (1/30/2023) | Text message exhibit, 51 pages | Goldberg explicitly acknowledged the potential for fraud in the arrangement. He recognized that using Litman's name while Litman was on disability could constitute fraud -- and continued the name use anyway. This is textbook willful conduct: awareness of wrongfulness + continuation. |
| "Nobody has given me a real answer on that question yet" | Text Messages p.14 (1/30/2023) | Text message exhibit, 51 pages | Goldberg sought guidance on the legality of the name use, received no clear answer, and proceeded anyway. Willful blindness to illegality is equivalent to actual knowledge under NY law. Goldberg chose to continue rather than pause the use until the legal question was resolved. |
| Litman's email cut off from litman@4patent.com and NathLaw.com (July 18, 2025). | Text Messages p.51 (7/18/2025) | Text message exhibit, 51 pages | Goldberg controlled the digital infrastructure bearing Litman's name -- email accounts, domain names, website content. Cutting off Litman's access while the name remained in use demonstrates both control over and knowledge of the name use. |
| "Defendant admits that in June 2020, Plaintiff became physically disabled." | Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65), Para. 39 | Court filing, verified answer | Goldberg knew Litman was disabled. Using a disabled person's professional identity while knowing they cannot participate in or control the work attributed to them is willful exploitation. |
Box-2 decision flip (June 5-12, 2024) — the underlying decision moment. (added 2026-04-26 — see output/SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md.) On 6/5/2024 NGM-registered practitioner James Lafave (Reg. No. 71013) personally signed two PTOL-85B (Issue Fee Transmittal) forms typing "Richard C. Litman" in Box 2 Line 2 — the field that controls the WIPO INID (74) "Attorney, Agent or Firm" line printed on the front page of an issued U.S. patent: U.S. Pat. 12,116,333 (App. 18/511,800) and Design Pat. D1,046,141 (App. 29/746,671). Seven days later, on 6/12/2024, the same James Lafave 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" typed "Joshua B. Goldberg" in Box 2 Line 2 on the PTOL-85B for U.S. Pat. 12,060,336 (App. 18/624,045). The only field that changed across the seven-day window was the typed name in Box 2 Line 2. The 276,000-document email production contains no responsive instruction email within the 5/15/2024 – 6/15/2024 window. |
USPTO PTOL-85B PDFs (primary-source field-by-field validation) | 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 |
Consciousness of wrongdoing — the actual decision moment. Element 4 is established at the underlying federal-form level by direct primary-source documents. Box 2 Line 2 is a per-patent typed entry by a registered USPTO practitioner under 37 CFR § 11.18(b)(2)(iii); the form's printed instruction reads "If no name is listed, no name will be printed." The June 12, 2024 election demonstrates that NGM had the institutional capacity, on a single deposit account and a single customer number, to elect Goldberg's name on the field that controls the (74) line — and chose to continue electing Litman's name on twelve other PTOL-85Bs in the same 111-day Lafave campaign that produced grants in the post-7/21/2024 SOL window. The absence of any contemporaneous written instruction supports an inference of oral instruction concealed from the produced record (CPLR 4547 / spoliation framing). |
| Per-patent election proof — Lafave self-attribution (9/25/2024). (added 2026-04-26.) On 9/25/2024 — three months after the Box-2 decision flip — James Lafave (Reg. 71013) signed a third PTOL-85B for U.S. Pat. 12,127,901 (App. 18/628,953), under the same Deposit Account 14-0112, the same Customer No. 37833, and the same Box 2 Line 1 "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer" — and typed his own name, "James Lafave," in Box 2 Line 2. | USPTO PTOL-85B PDF | output/patent_count_refresh/ptol85b_pdfs/12127901_18628953_ifee.pdf |
Defeats automation/default defense. Three different names (Litman, Goldberg, Lafave) typed in the same Box 2 Line 2 field by the same signer across three months, on the same firm-name field, the same deposit account, and the same customer number, prove Box 2 is not auto-populated, not a customer-number default, and not a docketing-software artifact. Each of the twelve "Richard C. Litman" entries that issued after 7/21/2024 was an affirmative knowing act for which the registered practitioner had the documented capacity to elect a different name. |
| Downstream eGrant issuance flip (January 14-21, 2025) — the public-publication boundary. Litman's name replaced by Goldberg on the front-page (74) line of issued NGM CN-37833 patents. Patent 12,194,434 (issued 1/14/2025; PTOL-85B form date 5/28/2024) = last Litman-named NGM eGrant; Patent 12,201,650 (issued 1/21/2025) = first Goldberg-named post-flip NGM eGrant. Of the 462 CN-37833 patents granted between 7/21/2024 and 4/25/2026, Litman appears on the (74) line of 12 (2.6%) and Goldberg on 449 (97.2%). | USPTO Patent Grant XML data; live USPTO ODP API pull 2026-04-25 | output/POST_20250114_NGM_PATENTS.csv; output/patent_count_refresh/ngm_cn37833_grants_classified.csv |
Public-publication consequence of the prior June 2024 decision. Goldberg had the ability to direct the firm's registered practitioners to elect a different name in Box 2 Line 2 of every PTOL-85B charged to NGM's Deposit Account 14-0112 from June 15, 2020 forward; he caused the firm to do so only beginning June 12, 2024, with public-issuance consequences appearing seven months later at the eGrant boundary. The eGrant flip proves: (a) the name use was within his control, (b) the (74) field of an issued U.S. patent is an internationally indexed bibliographic publication (WIPO Standard ST.9) that cannot be undone, and (c) the per-patent election was knowing and willful. (corrected 2026-04-26 — January 14-21, 2025 was the downstream eGrant issuance flip; the underlying decision moment is the 6/5-6/12/2024 PTOL-85B Box-2 flip; see output/SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md.) |
| PI OPPOSITION: "The parties' practice was also to include Plaintiff along with NGM as counsel for any matters for originated clients, including within filings and client communications because of the revenue share." | Defendant's Opposition to PI, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK, filed Oct. 10, 2025 (Connell Foley LLP) | Federal court filing | The word "practice" proves the name use was deliberate and systematic -- not inadvertent. A "practice" is a knowing, repeated pattern of conduct. This judicial admission through counsel establishes Element 4 (knowing/willful) independently of all other evidence. |
| RFA Nos. 3 and 14: Claims inability to admit or deny whether he personally signed the POAs -- despite authenticating the same documents under oath in federal court (Exhibit A). | RFA Responses (Feb. 17, 2026) cross-referenced with Goldberg Federal Declaration (10/10/2025) | RFA Response exhibit; Federal court filing | The contradiction between claiming "no recollection" in RFAs and authenticating the documents under oath in federal court is evidence of deliberate evasion -- a hallmark of willful conduct. A party who authenticated documents under oath cannot later claim ignorance of his own signatures on those same documents. |
| RFA No. 10: Goldberg claims Litman "had the ability to remove his name" from patents. | RFA Responses (Feb. 17, 2026) | RFA Response exhibit | This claim is directly refuted by NGM's own federal admission that "only NGM attorneys have submitted Power of Attorney forms" and that Litman's name "does not appear" in Filer/Filer Authorized By fields. Goldberg's attempt to shift responsibility to Litman while simultaneously controlling all filings is evidence of knowing misrepresentation. |
| Statute of limitations defense (Affirmative Defense #1) | Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65), First Affirmative Defense | Court filing, verified answer | Defense-as-embedded-admission: Asserting SOL implicitly concedes that the conduct occurred and was continuous. A party does not plead SOL against conduct that never happened. |
| Single publication rule defense (Affirmative Defense #2) | Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65), Second Affirmative Defense | Court filing, verified answer | Defense-as-embedded-admission: Asserting the single publication rule concedes that multiple publications occurred. The defense is an attempt to limit liability for admitted multiple uses -- not to deny the uses themselves. |
| Laches defense | Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65), Affirmative Defenses | Court filing, verified answer | Defense-as-embedded-admission: Laches presupposes prolonged, known conduct. A party does not plead laches if the conduct was brief or unknown to the plaintiff. |
| Admission | Source (Exact Cite) | Exhibit Reference | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goldberg, January 30, 2023: "if you are on disability, what would be considered legal vs. fraud? I don't want ANY of us having to face a fraud issue." | Text Messages (Jan. 30, 2023) | Text message exhibit; also cited in Litman v. Nath federal materials | Direct consciousness of guilt. Goldberg identified "fraud" as the risk of the disability-concealment arrangement and expressed concern about "ANY of us" facing a "fraud issue." He did not stop the conduct after identifying the risk -- he continued signing POAs and caused Litman's name to appear on hundreds of additional patents. Awareness of wrongfulness + continuation = knowing/willful conduct supporting exemplary damages under § 51. |
| Goldberg, February 2, 2023: "That is a positive, if we can agree on that there is no need for the special master." | Text Messages (Feb. 2, 2023) | Text message exhibit | Avoidance of forensic audit. Goldberg characterized avoiding the "special master" (forensic auditor) as a "positive." A party with nothing to hide does not characterize avoiding a forensic audit as a positive outcome. Consciousness of guilt regarding the accounting irregularities cataloged at Findings #50, #51, #53, and #62. |
| Goldberg, January 29, 2023: "USPTO fees... are not revenue per matters but simple pass through reimbursements." | Text Messages / Email (Jan. 29, 2023) | Text message / email exhibit | Premeditated revenue narrowing. Goldberg advanced this theory BEFORE the arbitration decision and BEFORE any finding on how fees should be categorized. Pre-arbitration narrowing of the revenue base is evidence of intent to reduce Litman's 20% share. Combined with the $16.2M accounting gap (Finding #19) and the 8-month July 2025 PAR suppression (Finding #50), this establishes the mental state underlying the subsequent accounting manipulation. |
| Admission | Source (Exact Cite) | Exhibit Reference | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Mr. Litman admitted that he could not perform his employment obligations under the Combination Agreement" | Goldberg's Post-Arbitration Brief (5/24/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Goldberg acknowledged -- after the arbitration -- that Litman could not perform attorney duties. Yet Goldberg continued signing POAs listing Litman as attorney of record for 19 more months (through January 2025). This is knowing use of a name belonging to someone Goldberg knew was unable to practice. |
| Goldberg's email (9/17/2020): "I agree it would be cleanest to treat it like death, thereby instituting the five-year period starting 6/15/2020" | Goldberg email, September 17, 2020 (cited in Motion for Partial Summary Judgment) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Goldberg compared Litman's departure to "death" for purposes of the agreement -- meaning he understood as early as September 2020 that Litman was permanently out. Every POA signed after this date (16 total) was signed with knowledge that Litman was not coming back. |
| "A2Z was created by Mr. Meyer and Mr. Goldberg to hold an interest in real estate. A2Z, as a holding company, simply owns the building where the NGM office is located." | Goldberg's Reply to Motion to Dismiss (2/9/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Goldberg disclosed the corporate structure he and Meyer created alongside NGM. This shows sophistication in structuring business entities -- undermining any claim that the continued use of Litman's name was inadvertent or the result of bureaucratic inertia. |
| Yet Goldberg signed 16 POAs personally -- contradicting the claim he acted only in corporate capacity | POA PDFs cross-referenced with Reply to Motion to Dismiss (2/9/2023) | POA PDFs and arbitration record | Goldberg argued in arbitration that he was "not a party to the Combination Agreement" and acted only in corporate capacity. But his personal signature (Reg. 44126) on 16 POAs proves individual, knowing action -- not mere corporate conduct. |
Element 4 is strongly supported. Goldberg's own emails prove he understood exactly how the POA mechanism worked, knew Litman was disabled, knew Litman remained listed as attorney of record at the USPTO, and continued causing the name use for years. The June 5-12, 2024 PTOL-85B Box-2 decision flip — established by direct primary-source PTOL-85B PDFs (last "Litman" forms 6/5/2024 on U.S. Pat. 12,116,333 and Design Pat. D1,046,141; first "Goldberg" form 6/12/2024 on U.S. Pat. 12,060,336; all signed by James Lafave under Reg. No. 71013, all charged to NGM Deposit Account 14-0112, on Customer No. 37833) — is the underlying decision moment evidencing per-patent control and deliberate knowing election under 37 CFR § 11.18(b)(2)(iii). The Lafave self-attribution comparator (9/25/2024 PTOL-85B for U.S. Pat. 12,127,901, with "James Lafave" typed in the same Box 2 Line 2 field) defeats every automation, customer-number-default, and docketing-software artifact defense. The downstream eGrant issuance flip (1/14/2025 → 1/21/2025) is the public-publication consequence seven months later. The defensive pleadings themselves embed admissions of continuous, knowing conduct. Goldberg's PI Opposition (EDNY, Oct. 10, 2025) adds a judicial admission through counsel that the name use was a deliberate "practice" — the strongest single word establishing knowing and willful conduct. (corrected 2026-04-26 — Element 4 anchor moved from January 2025 eGrant flip to the underlying 6/5-6/12/2024 PTOL-85B Box-2 decision flip; see output/SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md.)
| Admission | Source (Exact Cite) | Exhibit Reference | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goldberg admits Litman's name "appeared on the front page of patents" (plural). | Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65), Paras. 32 and 72 | Court filing, verified answer | The use of "patents" (plural) concedes multiple publications. Each issued patent is a separate government publication distributed worldwide. |
| Single publication rule defense (Affirmative Defense #2) | Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65), Second Affirmative Defense | Court filing, verified answer | Defense-as-embedded-admission: The single publication rule defense concedes that multiple publications occurred and attempts to collapse them into one. This defense should fail because each patent is a separate work issued on a separate date to a separate inventor/assignee -- not a single integrated publication like a book or newspaper edition. |
| 905 patents issued since 6/15/2020 with Litman on Line 74. | USPTO PatentsView database | richard_litman_attorney_issued_patents_since_2020-06-15.csv |
905 separate government publications, each distributed to the public on a separate issue date, each naming a different set of inventors and assignees. |
| 206 outgoing USPTO documents identified across 21 patents bearing Litman's name. | IFW document analysis from USPTO API | IFW JSON files in uploads/ directory |
Under the "deck of cards" theory adopted for this case, each outgoing USPTO document (filing receipt, NOA, office action response) bearing Litman's name is a separate "publication" under Section 51. This multiplies the actionable uses from 905 to thousands. |
| 2,697 USPTO notification emails referencing CN-37833 and "Richard C. Litman"; 1,598 sent to jgoldberg@nathlaw.com (Sept 2021 - June 2025). | Email archive analysis | Email archive (SharePoint production, 276K emails) | Each email to a client with an attachment bearing Litman's name is a separate use, effective when sent. |
| Admission | Source (Exact Cite) | Exhibit Reference | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actual invoice table with docket numbers (32087.xx, 33101.xx), attorney's fees, USPTO fees | KFU Invoices (10/5/2024) | KFU invoice records | Each invoice references specific docket numbers that correspond to specific patent applications. Each application resulted in a patent publication bearing Litman's name. The invoices prove each publication was tied to a separately-billed matter -- supporting the argument that each patent is a separate commercial transaction, not a single integrated publication. |
| "The Parties performed in accordance with termination for three years" | Goldberg's Post-Arbitration Brief (5/24/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Goldberg admits three years of post-termination activity. During those three years, hundreds of patents issued bearing Litman's name -- each a separate publication on a separate date. |
Publication is established by government records and Goldberg's own admissions. The critical legal question is whether each patent constitutes a separate publication (plaintiff's position) or whether the single publication rule collapses them (defendant's position). The patents were issued on different dates, to different assignees, for different inventions -- they are not a single integrated publication.
Under Turane v. MGN, LLC and NY LLC Law Section 609, an LLC member is personally liable only if he personally participated in the tortious conduct.
| Admission | Source (Exact Cite) | Exhibit Reference | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 POA forms personally signed by Goldberg (Reg. 44126), each appointing CN-37833. | POA PDFs from USPTO API, OCR-verified | evidence/poa_pdfs/ (16 PDFs); output/POA_GOLDBERG_SIGNATURE_TABLE.md |
Goldberg did not merely oversee firm operations. He personally signed government documents that directly caused Litman's name to appear on the resulting patents. This satisfies Turane. |
| December 21, 2023: Goldberg signed BOTH the POA (82A) and the KFU assignment cover sheet (PTO/AIA/15) for App 18/392,663 on the same day. | POA and assignment PDFs from USPTO API | evidence/poa_pdfs/POA_11980937_18392663_2023-12-21.pdf and evidence/assignments/pdfs/ASSIGN_11980937_18392663_2023-12-21.pdf |
Dual personal action on a single day -- the strongest single-day showing of personal, directed control. |
| Most recent POA signature: January 17, 2025 (App 19/028,392, Patent 12,303,254) -- 3 days after the last "Litman" eGrant issued (Pat. 12,194,434, 1/14/2025; downstream public-issuance boundary), 7 months after the underlying 6/12/2024 PTOL-85B Box-2 decision flip. | POA PDF from USPTO API | evidence/poa_pdfs/POA_12303254_19028392_2025-01-17.pdf |
Goldberg was still personally signing POAs designating Litman's customer number as recently as January 2025. (corrected 2026-04-26 — see output/SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md.) |
| 12 of 16 Goldberg-signed POAs are post-arbitration (after June 14, 2023). | POA date analysis | output/POA_GOLDBERG_SIGNATURE_TABLE.md |
The pattern continued and accelerated after the arbitration that resolved the underlying dispute. |
| Goldberg's personal email (jgoldberg@nathlaw.com) appears as correspondent on assignment cover sheets listing "RICHARD C. LITMAN NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER." | USPTO Assignment Center records | Assignment Center records for Reel 065379/Frame 0084 (App 18/383,448) | Goldberg's personal contact information on the same documents bearing Litman's name confirms personal involvement, not mere firm-level conduct. |
| Goldberg admits he is "co-managing partner" of NGM. | Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65), Para. 8 | Court filing, verified answer | Establishes positional authority -- Goldberg had the power to stop the name use. Combined with personal POA signatures, this shows both authority and action. |
| Exhibit E -- January 31, 2023 text: Litman asks "If you and Jerry split up and you keep the clients, will you honor the payments to me?" Goldberg: "I would think so." | Litman v. Nath, EDNY 1:25-cv-04048, Exhibit E to Complaint | Federal court filing (text message exhibit) | Personal assumption of duty independent of Meyer. Goldberg personally committed to honoring payment obligations to Litman even in the event of a split with Meyer -- a personal, individual assumption of duty that cannot be shielded by the LLC. This is direct evidence of personal obligation satisfying Turane's personal-participation requirement. |
| Arbitration Award direct quote: "NGM was created as the alter ego for its partners." | Arbitration Award (6/14/2023), Case No. 2022001552 | Arbitration record / NYSCEF Doc 34 | ALTER EGO FINDING BY THE ARBITRATOR. This is the arbitrator's own finding -- not plaintiff's characterization. Alter-ego findings independently support piercing the LLC veil under NY LLC Law § 609 in addition to the Turane personal-participation test. Combined with Goldberg's 16 personal POA signatures, personal liability is established on two independent grounds: (i) personal participation under Turane, and (ii) alter-ego piercing under the arbitrator's express finding. |
| Exhibit L -- March 2021: Meyer's written 5-year tail promise and trust-account assurance. | Litman v. Nath, EDNY 1:25-cv-04048, Exhibit L to Complaint | Federal court filing | Confirms both partners personally assumed ongoing obligations to Litman in writing. A written 5-year tail promise from Meyer reinforces that the scheme was a personal undertaking of both NGM members rather than routine LLC operations. Supports the alter-ego finding and the personal-liability theory. |
| Admission | Source (Exact Cite) | Exhibit Reference | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Meyer were not parties to the Combination Agreement, and owed no such duties to Claimant" | Goldberg's Reply to Motion to Dismiss (2/9/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Goldberg claimed he acted only in corporate capacity and was not personally bound by the Combination Agreement. Yet his personal signature (Reg. 44126) appears on 16 POA forms. He cannot claim corporate shield while personally signing the documents that caused the harm. |
| "A2Z was created by Mr. Meyer and Mr. Goldberg to hold an interest in real estate." | Goldberg's Reply to Motion to Dismiss (2/9/2023) | Arbitration record, Case No. 2022001552 | Goldberg and Meyer created separate entities for different purposes. Goldberg's personal involvement in POA filings was a deliberate personal choice, not an automatic corporate function. |
Personal liability is established beyond serious dispute. Goldberg's personal signature appears on 16 government documents that each directly caused Litman's name to appear on a U.S. patent. This is not derivative liability through a firm -- it is direct personal tortious conduct documented in federal records.
Each affirmative defense implicitly concedes facts that support plaintiff's case:
| Defense | What It Concedes | Element Supported |
|---|---|---|
| SOL (1st Defense) | Conduct occurred and was continuous | Elements 1, 4 (knowing/willful) |
| Single Publication Rule (2nd Defense) | Multiple publications occurred | Element 5 (publication) |
| Consent (10th Defense) | Use was intentional and required authorization; use was for a purpose requiring consent (i.e., trade) | Elements 2 (trade purpose), 3 (consent was an issue), 4 (intentional use) |
| Laches | Prolonged, known conduct by defendant; plaintiff's awareness of ongoing conduct | Elements 1 (use), 4 (knowing/willful), 5 (continuing publication) |
| "Purely a Courtesy" (BOP 8th Defense) | Name use was discretionary, not compelled by contract; NGM controlled the decision to include Litman's name | Elements 1 (use), 3 (no contractual authorization = no consent) |
| First Publication / SOL (BOP 3rd Defense) | Identifies Patent 10,683,577 B1 (June 16, 2020) as the "first publication" -- conceding that publications bearing Litman's name began the day after the SOL cutoff and continued for years | Elements 1 (use), 5 (publication began 6/16/2020) |
| Federal Preemption (BOP New Defense) | By arguing federal preemption, Goldberg concedes that the conduct involves federal patent records -- confirming the use occurred in the context of federal patent prosecution, not incidental private communications | Element 2 (trade purpose in federal patent system) |
| Compensation Admission (BOP 5th Defense) | Admits Litman "has received and is receiving compensation for collected fees for work completed for originated clients during the period of time from June 15, 2020 through June 15, 2025" -- confirming the commercial relationship existed throughout the statutory period | Element 2 (trade purpose); also confirms the name use spanned the full statutory period |
| PI Opposition Admissions (EDNY, 10/10/2025) | Five judicial admissions through counsel: (1) name use was a deliberate "practice," (2) applied to "filings and client communications," (3) motivated by "the revenue share," (4) "in both parties' financial interest," (5) NGM "agreed" to continue listing Litman "because of the parties' agreement to share revenue." Cannot be withdrawn. | Elements 1 (use), 2 (trade purpose), 4 (knowing/willful) |
| Arbitrator: "Goldberg is not a party to the contracts" (NYSCEF Doc 34) | Goldberg cannot derive consent from contracts to which the arbitrator found he is not a party. Destroys the Combination Agreement consent defense at its foundation. | Element 3 (without consent); Personal liability (act was outside any contractual framework) |
Goldberg's various sworn statements, discovery responses, and affirmative defenses contain irreconcilable contradictions that independently undermine his credibility and confirm the elements of the Section 51 claim.
| Position A | Position B | Why They Are Incompatible |
|---|---|---|
| RFA No. 7 (Feb. 17, 2026): Claims the Combination Agreements ARE written consent for Line 74 listings. | BOP Eighth Affirmative Defense (Feb. 26, 2026): "NGM included Plaintiff's name on patents and on its website purely as a courtesy." | If the name use was authorized by contract, it was not a "courtesy" -- it was a contractual right. If it was "purely a courtesy," there was no contractual obligation or authorization, and the Combination Agreements cannot serve as the basis for consent. These positions were taken nine days apart. |
| Position A | Position B | Why They Are Incompatible |
|---|---|---|
| Goldberg cites text messages where Litman discussed "Senior Counsel" status on the NGM website as evidence of consent. | RFA No. 2 asks about patent Line 74 designations -- an entirely different category of name use. | Litman's text messages about his website biography do not constitute consent to have his name placed on patent front pages filed with the federal government. These are separate forms of use requiring separate authorization under Section 50. Goldberg conflates them to manufacture consent that does not exist. |
| Position A | Position B | Why They Are Incompatible |
|---|---|---|
| RFA No. 10: Goldberg claims Litman "had the ability to remove his name" from patents. | NGM Federal Sanctions Brief: "Only NGM attorneys have submitted Power of Attorney forms authorizing them to act on behalf of the clients." Litman's name "does not appear" in Filer/Filer Authorized By fields. | Goldberg claims Litman could have removed his name while simultaneously admitting that only NGM attorneys controlled the POA filings and that Litman had no filer access. A person who does not appear in the filer fields and whose firm admits "only NGM attorneys" submitted forms cannot unilaterally remove his name from patent records. |
| Position A | Position B | Why They Are Incompatible |
|---|---|---|
| RFA Nos. 3 and 14 (Feb. 17, 2026): Claims he is "unable to admit or deny" whether he personally signed the POAs. | Goldberg Federal Declaration (Oct. 10, 2025): Authenticates under oath all 6 exemplar patents' POA transmittals bearing his signature /Joshua B. Goldberg/ Reg. 44126. | A party who authenticated documents under oath in federal court four months earlier cannot claim inability to confirm his own signatures on those same documents in state court discovery. This is not a failure of recollection -- it is deliberate evasion. |
| Position A | Position B | Why They Are Incompatible |
|---|---|---|
| Arbitration (2023): Goldberg swore the Combination Agreement terminated on June 15, 2020. The arbitrator accepted this position. | State Court (2026): Goldberg's Tenth Affirmative Defense and RFA No. 7 invoke the Combination Agreements as the source of consent for post-6/15/2020 name use. | A terminated agreement cannot authorize conduct after its termination. See JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL TRAP section below. |
Each contradiction independently supports summary judgment. Under New York law, a party's self-contradictory positions may be used against him on summary judgment. See Prego v. City of New York, 147 A.D.2d 165, 170 (2d Dep't 1989) ("A party may not defeat summary judgment by raising a feigned issue of fact fabricated solely for the purpose of avoiding the consequences of earlier admissions"). Goldberg's positions are not merely inconsistent -- they are incompatible. He cannot hold all of them simultaneously, and each pair of contradictions eliminates at least one defense.
Documents Reviewed: Combination Agreement (March 29, 2017) and Amendment to Agreement (May 7, 2017) -- the only two contracts Goldberg identifies as his basis for consent (Discovery Response No. 1).
Conclusion: Neither document authorizes the use of Litman's personal name on patent filings, USPTO correspondence, or any public-facing document.
| Term Searched | Present in Combination Agreement? | Present in Amendment? | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Consent" | NO | NO | The statute requires "written consent." The word does not appear in either document. |
| "Goodwill" | NO | NO | No transfer of personal goodwill or professional reputation. |
| "Power of Attorney" | NO | NO | No authorization to file POAs listing Litman as attorney of record. |
| "Patent" (as authorization to use name) | NO | NO | Neither agreement authorizes placing Litman's name on patent front pages or Line 74. |
| "Name" (as license to use personal name) | NO | NO | No personal name license or authorization. |
| "Attorney of record" | NO | NO | No provision addressing who would be listed as attorney of record on USPTO filings. |
| Item | Source Provision | What It Is | What It Is NOT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stock of Litman Law Offices, Ltd. | Amendment Para. 2 | Corporate entity ownership | A personal name license |
| Domain names (LitmanLaw.com, 4patent.com) | Amendment Para. 3(b) | Internet addresses | Authorization to use "Richard C. Litman" on government filings |
| Telephone numbers | Amendment Para. 3(a) | Communication infrastructure | Consent to represent Litman as an active attorney |
| USPTO Customer Numbers 24396 and 37833 | Amendment Para. 3(e) | Administrative routing mechanisms | Permission to list Litman's personal name on Line 74 of patent grants |
A Customer Number is an administrative routing tool -- it determines where USPTO correspondence is sent. It does not determine whose name appears on a patent front page. Goldberg conflates possession of Customer Number 37833 with authorization to use the name associated with that number. These are distinct concepts. Transferring a phone number does not authorize the transferee to impersonate the prior owner. Transferring a Customer Number does not authorize the transferee to list the prior registrant as attorney of record.
The Combination Agreement's definition of "Litman Originated Client" -- clients engaged "as a primary consequence of the efforts, reputation or other actions of LITMAN" -- recognizes that Litman's reputation is his personal asset. The agreement treats this reputation as the source of client relationships and requires royalty payments for the "privilege" of servicing those clients (Arbitration Award, 6/14/2023). If NGM must pay royalties for Litman's reputation, it follows that Litman's reputation -- and by extension his name -- was never transferred.
Status: Served on Goldberg January 28, 2026. Goldberg responded on February 17, 2026 through Connell Foley LLP. Responses analyzed below.
| RFA No. | Request (Summary) | Element Targeted | Deemed Admitted? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Admit that Plaintiff's name, "Richard C. Litman," appeared as attorney of record on the front page of at least one United States patent issued after June 15, 2020. | Element 1 (Use) | Already admitted in Answer Para. 32 |
| 2 | Admit that Plaintiff's name appears on Line 74 as "Patent Attorney." | Element 1 (Use); Element 2 (Trade) | PARTIALLY ADMITTED. Goldberg admits Litman "is an attorney concerned with the patent" on Line 74 but semantically denies the "Patent Attorney" label. States the basis was that Litman was "the attorney who originated the client for the Firm and who was, pursuant to his agreements with the Firm, entitled to a percentage of the Firm's attorney's fees." This is a binding admission that the name use was tied to fee generation -- commercial purpose. |
| 3 | Admit that Defendant personally signed at least one Power of Attorney (PTO/AIA/82A) form after June 15, 2020 that designated USPTO Customer Number 37833. | Personal Liability | EVASIVE. Claims "unable to admit or deny" -- admits his e-signature appears but claims no recollection of personally signing. Contradicted by his own federal declaration authenticating these same documents under oath (10/10/2025). |
| 4 | Admit that the Firm collected legal fees for the patent and Litman received a percentage. | Element 2 (Trade purpose) | ADMITTED. "The Firm collected legal fees for the professional services rendered for the patent" and Litman "received a percentage of the legal fees collected." Direct admission of commercial purpose. |
| 5 | Admit that Customer Number 37833 is associated with the patent. | Element 1 (Mechanism) | ADMITTED. Confirms CN-37833 -- the mechanism that caused Litman's name to appear on patents -- was associated with the patent. |
| 6 | Admit that a Firm employee received the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt. | Element 1 (Control) | ADMITTED. Confirms NGM controlled the filing process and received confirmations. Litman did not. |
| 7 | Admit that Defendant does not possess any written agreement signed by Plaintiff that explicitly grants Defendant the right to list Plaintiff as "Patent Attorney" on the face of issued patents. | Element 3 (No consent) | DENIED -- claims Combination Agreements ARE written consent. But neither agreement mentions Line 74, patent front pages, or Power of Attorney filings. This response is contradicted by Goldberg's own BOP Eighth Affirmative Defense (Feb. 26, 2026) calling the same use "purely a courtesy" -- if it was a courtesy, the Agreements did not compel it. |
| 8 | Admit that the Combination Agreement (March 29, 2017) does not contain any provision authorizing the use of Plaintiff's personal name on patent filings. | Element 3 (No consent) | See RFA #7 response -- Goldberg claims the Agreements authorize the use, but provision-by-provision audit confirms they do not. |
| 9 | Admit that the Amendment to Agreement (May 7, 2017) does not contain any provision authorizing the use of Plaintiff's personal name on patent filings. | Element 3 (No consent) | See RFA #7 response. |
| 10 | Admit that Defendant claims Litman "had the ability to remove his name" from patents. | Element 3 (Shifting blame) | CONTRADICTED. NGM's own federal brief admits "only NGM attorneys have submitted Power of Attorney forms" and Litman's name "does not appear" in Filer fields. A person with no filer access cannot remove his name. |
| 11 | Admit that Plaintiff became physically disabled in June 2020 and did not perform patent prosecution work after that date. | Element 1 (Use without participation) | Disability admitted in Answer Para. 39. |
| 12 | Admit that NGM received revenue from clients whose patent matters listed Plaintiff as attorney of record after June 15, 2020. | Element 2 (Trade purpose) | Effectively admitted through RFA Nos. 2 and 4 (fees collected, percentage paid to Litman). |
| 13 | Admit that Defendant does not possess any written consent from Plaintiff authorizing Defendant to list Plaintiff as attorney of record on Patent No. 12,194,434. | Element 3 (No consent -- specific patent) | See RFA #7 response -- Goldberg points only to the Combination Agreements, which contain no patent-specific authorization. |
| 14 | Admit that Defendant personally signed POAs listing Litman. | Personal Liability | EVASIVE. Same as RFA #3 -- "unable to admit or deny" despite authenticating these documents under oath in federal court four months earlier. |
| 15 | Admit that Defendant had the ability to change the attorney name listed on patent front pages at all times relevant to this action. | Element 4 (Control) | Proven by the underlying 6/5-6/12/2024 PTOL-85B Box-2 decision flip on U.S. Pat. 12,060,336 — and the Lafave 9/25/2024 self-attribution PTOL-85B on U.S. Pat. 12,127,901 — regardless of response; the 1/14-1/21/2025 eGrant boundary is the downstream public-publication consequence. (corrected 2026-04-26 — see output/SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md.) |
Goldberg responded on February 17, 2026 through Connell Foley LLP. The responses contain critical admissions (RFA Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 -- all supporting commercial purpose and establishing the mechanism of name use), evasive non-answers (RFA Nos. 3, 14 -- claiming inability to confirm his own signatures despite authenticating the same documents under oath in federal court), and a denial (RFA No. 7 -- claiming the Combination Agreements authorize the use) that is contradicted by Goldberg's own BOP filing nine days later characterizing the same use as "purely a courtesy."
Under CPLR 3123(a), an evasive response that does not "specifically" deny or "set forth in detail the reasons" for inability to admit or deny may be treated as an admission. Goldberg's claimed inability to confirm his own signature on documents he authenticated under oath in federal court four months earlier does not satisfy the specificity requirement. A motion to deem RFA Nos. 3 and 14 admitted is warranted.
Document: Scottsdale Insurance Company, Professional Liability Policy No. FJS0001424 Policy Period: July 8, 2021 to July 8, 2022 Premium: $38,260 Signed by: Joshua B. Goldberg, July 6, 2021 Key Finding: Schedule of Attorneys lists Richard C. Litman as "OC" (Of Counsel)
| Element | How This Document Supports It |
|---|---|
| Element 1 (Use of name) | Goldberg listed Litman's name on a commercial insurance application submitted to a regulated insurer. This is a use of Litman's name in a document with legal and financial consequences. |
| Element 2 (Trade purpose) | Professional liability insurance is a cost of doing business. Listing Litman as "Of Counsel" affected the premium calculation ($38,260). The insurer's risk assessment -- and therefore the premium -- was based in part on the qualifications and status of the attorneys listed. Litman's name had direct commercial value in this context. |
| Element 3 (Without consent) | The policy period (7/8/2021-7/8/2022) falls entirely after the June 15, 2020 termination date. Goldberg personally signed the application. No evidence exists that Litman authorized his inclusion on this insurance application. |
| Element 4 (Knowing/willful) | Goldberg personally signed the application on July 6, 2021 -- more than a year after the June 15, 2020 termination date, and two months after the Tanya Harkins email confirming "he doesn't work here anymore" (May 21, 2021). Goldberg knew Litman was not working at the firm and listed him anyway. |
This document extends the pattern of unauthorized name use beyond USPTO filings and the firm website to a third channel: regulated insurance applications. It demonstrates that Goldberg's use of Litman's name was not limited to patent prosecution but pervaded the firm's commercial operations. A law firm's representation to its insurer about the composition of its attorney roster is inherently commercial -- it is a statement made in the course of business that directly affects the firm's financial obligations.
Document: Goldberg's Responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions, served February 17, 2026 through Connell Foley LLP (Aaron H. Gould, Esq.) Significance: Binding party admissions under CPLR 3123.
| RFA No. | Response Summary | Element Supported | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Admits Litman "is an attorney concerned with the patent" on Line 74. States basis: Litman was "the attorney who originated the client for the Firm and who was, pursuant to his agreements with the Firm, entitled to a percentage of the Firm's attorney's fees received for the patent work completed for an originated client." | Elements 1, 2 | Binding admission that name use was tied to fee generation. This is the strongest single admission of commercial purpose in the record. |
| 4 | ADMITTED: "the Firm collected legal fees for the professional services rendered for the patent" and Litman "received a percentage of the legal fees collected." | Element 2 | Direct admission of fee collection and profit-sharing on patent work bearing Litman's name. |
| 5 | ADMITTED: Customer Number 37833 associated with the patent. | Element 1 | Confirms the mechanism that caused Litman's name to appear. |
| 6 | ADMITTED: Firm employee received the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt. | Elements 1, 4 | Confirms NGM controlled filings; Litman did not receive confirmations. |
| 7 | DENIED: Claims Combination Agreements ARE written consent for Line 74 listings. | Element 3 | Contradicted by BOP Eighth Affirmative Defense (Feb. 26, 2026) calling the use "purely a courtesy." Also contradicted by provision-by-provision audit showing neither agreement mentions Line 74, patent front pages, or POA filings. |
| 3, 14 | "Unable to admit or deny" whether he personally signed POAs -- admits e-signature appears but claims no recollection. | Personal Liability | Evasive. Contradicted by Goldberg's own federal declaration (Oct. 10, 2025) authenticating these same documents under oath. Motion to deem admitted is warranted. |
| 10 | Claims Litman "had the ability to remove his name." | Element 3 | Contradicted by NGM's federal admission that "only NGM attorneys" submitted POAs and Litman "does not appear" in Filer fields. |
Document: Goldberg's Response to Plaintiff's Bill of Particulars Demand, served February 26, 2026 through Connell Foley LLP Significance: Contains affirmative defenses with embedded admissions that contradict Goldberg's other sworn positions.
| Defense | Statement | Element Supported | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Affirmative Defense | "NGM included Plaintiff's name on patents and on its website purely as a courtesy." | Elements 1, 3 | DESTROYS contractual authorization argument. If the name use was "purely a courtesy," it was discretionary -- not compelled by the Combination Agreements. This contradicts RFA No. 7 (filed 9 days earlier) where Goldberg claims the Agreements ARE written consent. These positions cannot coexist. |
| Fifth Affirmative Defense | Admits "Plaintiff has received and is receiving compensation for collected fees for work completed for originated clients during the period of time from June 15, 2020 through June 15, 2025." | Element 2 | Concedes continuous commercial compensation tied to Litman-originated matters during the full statutory period. |
| Third Affirmative Defense | Identifies Patent 10,683,577 B1 (June 16, 2020) as the "first publication" and argues all claims are time-barred under CPLR 215(3) 1-year SOL + single publication rule. | Element 5 | Concedes that publications bearing Litman's name began June 16, 2020 -- the day after the SOL cutoff -- and continued thereafter. The defense itself establishes the timeline of publication. |
| New: Federal Preemption | Claims NY state court lacks jurisdiction over patent-related Section 50-51 claims. | -- | A novel defense with no support in Section 51 caselaw. Section 51 protects personal name rights -- it does not regulate patent prosecution. The fact that the name appeared on a patent does not transform a state name-misappropriation claim into a federal patent claim. |
Document: NGM's brief in opposition to sanctions, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK Significance: Contains binding party admissions about who controlled USPTO filings.
| Admission | Legal Significance | Element Supported |
|---|---|---|
| "Only NGM attorneys have submitted Power of Attorney forms authorizing them to act on behalf of the clients." | Proves Litman did NOT submit the POAs. NGM attorneys -- specifically Goldberg -- controlled all filings. This eliminates any argument that Litman caused his own name to appear on patents. | Elements 1 (causation), 3 (no consent by filing), Personal Liability |
| Litman's name "does not appear" in Filer/Filer Authorized By fields on any USPTO submission. | Proves Litman had no filing access or control. Contradicts Goldberg's RFA No. 10 claim that Litman "had the ability to remove his name." | Elements 3 (no control = no consent), 4 (Goldberg's knowledge he controlled filings) |
| Quotes text messages where Litman said "The law firm's public promotion of my Senior Counsel status is consistent with me not being dead or disqualified." | This quote addresses WEBSITE status -- not patent Line 74 listings. Goldberg cites it as evidence of consent to patent name use, but the text message is explicitly about the firm's "public promotion" of "Senior Counsel status" on the website. These are entirely different categories of name use. | Element 3 (proves consent defense relies on conflating website and patent uses) |
Document: Exhibit A to Goldberg Federal Declaration, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK, filed October 10, 2025 Significance: Goldberg authenticated under oath all 6 exemplar patents' POA transmittals, application transmittals, and IDS forms -- each bearing his signature /Joshua B. Goldberg/ Reg. 44126, designating CN-37833.
This authentication eliminates any future objection to the genuineness of these documents. Under CPLR 4517 (sworn testimony from another proceeding) and CPLR 4549 (party admissions), Goldberg's federal authentication is admissible and binding in state court. He cannot now claim the documents are fabricated, altered, or inauthentic. The authenticated documents include the very POA forms that caused Litman's name to appear on each exemplar patent -- locking in the causation evidence as established fact.
The authentication also creates a devastating contradiction with Goldberg's RFA responses (Nos. 3 and 14), filed four months later, in which he claims he is "unable to admit or deny" whether he personally signed the POAs. A party who authenticated documents under oath cannot subsequently claim inability to confirm his own signatures on those same documents.
Document: Declaration of Joshua B. Goldberg in Support of Defendant's Motion for Sanctions, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK (separate filing from DN 25; note: Exhibit C to DN 25 is text message excerpts, not the Goldberg Declaration) Significance: Sworn statements by a party-opponent are binding judicial admissions.
| Admission (Summary) | Legal Significance | Element Supported |
|---|---|---|
| Goldberg authenticates the POA forms and transmittal letters under oath. | By authenticating these documents in federal court, Goldberg cannot later challenge their authenticity in state court. The POAs bearing his signature (Reg. 44126) are now confirmed as genuine by Goldberg's own sworn statement. | Personal Liability; Element 1 (Use) |
| Goldberg describes his role in patent prosecution operations. | Any description of his involvement in patent prosecution -- filing decisions, client management, POA submissions -- constitutes sworn testimony of personal participation in the conduct that caused Litman's name to appear on patents. | Personal Liability; Element 4 (Knowing/willful) |
| Goldberg addresses the Combination Agreement and its scope. | Any characterization of the Combination Agreement's scope in the federal declaration can be used against Goldberg in state court. If Goldberg's description of the agreement's scope does not include personal name authorization, the declaration affirmatively supports Element 3. | Element 3 (Without consent) |
| Goldberg's sworn statements in federal court are usable in state court proceedings. | Under CPLR 4517, sworn testimony from another proceeding is admissible. Under CPLR 3117, depositions and sworn statements of a party can be used for any purpose. The federal declaration is a party admission under CPLR 4549. | All Elements |
Goldberg's federal declaration should be compared line-by-line with his state court Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65). Any inconsistency between the two sworn documents is independently actionable as a credibility issue and may support sanctions. Any consistency confirms the admissions already cataloged in this matrix.
Action Required: Obtain the full text of the Goldberg Federal Declaration from PACER (EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK, filed in support of Defendant's Motion for Sanctions — separate from DN 25). Extract all sworn statements and map each to the element framework above.
Document: Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK, filed October 10, 2025 (Connell Foley LLP on behalf of NGM) Significance: Contains judicial admissions made through counsel in a federal proceeding. These cannot be withdrawn. They represent the strongest single source of admissions in the record because Goldberg's own lawyers told a federal judge that the name use was deliberate, systematic, and revenue-motivated.
| Admission | Element(s) Supported | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|
| "NGM agreed with Plaintiff that he would continue to be listed as a Senior Counsel at the firm because of the parties' agreement to share revenue from originated clients." | Elements 1, 2 | Admits the continued listing was (a) deliberate ("agreed"), (b) tied to revenue ("share revenue from originated clients"), and (c) ongoing. Establishes both the name use (Element 1) and its commercial purpose (Element 2). |
| "The parties' practice was also to include Plaintiff along with NGM as counsel for any matters for originated clients, including within filings and client communications because of the revenue share." | Elements 1, 2, 4 | The most damaging single admission. Admits: (a) the name use was a "practice" -- systematic and deliberate, not incidental; (b) it applied to "filings AND client communications" -- two categories of commercial use; (c) the stated reason was "the revenue share" -- commercial motivation. This is a judicial admission of knowing, willful, commercially motivated name use. |
| "Plaintiff represented it was in both parties' financial interest to do so." | Element 2 | Direct admission that the name use was commercially motivated -- "in both parties' financial interest." Even framing it as Litman's suggestion does not change the fact that Goldberg's counsel admitted the commercial motivation to a federal court. |
| "Plaintiff's biography no longer appears on NGM's website." | Element 1 | Concedes the biography WAS on the website before. Corroborates Answer Para. 32 and Wayback Machine evidence. The past-tense admission confirms the historical name use on the website. |
| "NGM has ceased listing Plaintiff as counsel on its communications." | Elements 1, 4 | Admits NGM previously DID list Litman as counsel on communications. The word "ceased" proves (a) prior use existed, (b) NGM controlled the listing (they decided to cease it), and (c) the cessation was a deliberate choice -- proving the prior continuation was also a deliberate choice. |
| Defense | PI Opposition Admission That Destroys It |
|---|---|
| "Purely a courtesy" (BOP 8th) | "because of the parties' agreement to share revenue" -- not a courtesy, a revenue arrangement. |
| Consent (10th) | "NGM agreed with Plaintiff that he would continue to be listed" -- Goldberg admits he controlled the listing decision. If NGM "agreed" to list Litman, then NGM could have declined. The listing was NGM's choice, not Litman's unilateral consent. |
| Denial of causation (Answer Para. 33) | "The parties' practice was also to include Plaintiff... within filings and client communications" -- Goldberg's counsel admits the practice existed and was systematic. Goldberg cannot deny causing what his lawyers admitted was their firm's practice. |
| Federal preemption (BOP new defense) | "client communications" are not patent filings -- they are ordinary commercial communications. The PI Opposition admits name use extended beyond USPTO filings to client communications, which are unquestionably within state-court jurisdiction. |
Document: Full Arbitration Award, NYSCEF Doc 34 Finding: "Goldberg is not a party to the contracts." Significance: This finding by the arbitrator destroys Goldberg's consent defense at its foundation.
| Element | How This Finding Supports It |
|---|---|
| Element 3 (Without consent) | If Goldberg is not a party to the Combination Agreements, he cannot derive consent from them. Discovery Response No. 1 identified "the Combination Agreements" as the sole basis for Goldberg's authority to use Litman's name. The arbitrator found Goldberg is not a party to those agreements. Therefore, Goldberg has identified no valid basis for consent. |
| Personal liability | If Goldberg acted outside any contractual framework -- because he was not a party to the contracts -- then his use of Litman's name was a purely personal tortious act, not conduct shielded by any contractual arrangement. This strengthens the Turane personal liability analysis. |
| Judicial estoppel | This finding creates an additional estoppel layer. Goldberg argued in arbitration that he was not a party to the contracts. He now invokes those same contracts as the source of consent in state court. He cannot be both a non-party (for purposes of escaping contractual liability) and a beneficiary (for purposes of claiming contractual authorization). |
The Interim Award (February 21, 2023) DENIED Goldberg's motion to dismiss the accounting and fiduciary duty claims at the interim stage -- meaning the arbitrator initially found those theories "viable" before the evidentiary hearing. Goldberg's argument that the Award forecloses all claims is undermined by the fact that the arbitrator kept them alive through the interim stage.
Litman's affidavit contains two additional admissions from Goldberg:
Goldberg email, June 8, 2020: "Thank you very much for trusting me and us; I will do everything I can to continue to be worthy of that trust." (Exhibit __, Litman Affidavit, Nov. 2025.) This is a personal admission of the trust relationship between Goldberg and Litman -- relevant to the fiduciary context and the personal nature of the relationship that Goldberg exploited.
Goldberg text, January 31, 2023: Litman asked "If you and Jerry split up and you keep the clients, will you honor the payments to me?" Goldberg: "Yes." (Exhibit __, Litman Affidavit, Nov. 2025.) This admits (a) the clients were Litman's originated clients, (b) Goldberg expected to keep servicing them, and (c) Goldberg acknowledged an obligation to pay Litman for the use of those client relationships. If Goldberg owed Litman for the client relationships, he certainly had no right to use Litman's name on the resulting patents without separate written consent.
| Document | What It Would Prove | Element | Status | Action Required |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Litman non-consent declaration (for NY state court) | Sworn statement: "I did not consent to the use of my name on patent filings or the NGM website after [date]." Litman's 2/2/2023 sworn arbitration declaration already states no agreement was reached on post-termination specifics (Paras. 5, 7, 8) -- but a declaration specifically addressing Section 50 consent is still needed. | Element 3 | PARTIALLY ADDRESSED -- arbitration declaration obtained; NY-specific declaration NOT YET DRAFTED | Counsel/client action. Litman's arbitration declaration (2/2/2023) provides sworn statements that no post-termination agreement was reached, but a focused Section 50 non-consent declaration for the state court case should still be prepared. |
| Federal court briefs (EDNY 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK) | NGM's Opposition (DN 25, filed 10/10/2025) by Connell Foley -- contains arguments about consent, commercial speech, laches, arbitration clause. May contain additional admissions. | All elements | NOT OBTAINED | Download from PACER or request from counsel. Case number is known. |
| Goldberg Declaration (from Defendant's Motion for Sanctions — separate from DN 25) | IDENTIFIED AS NEW ADMISSION SOURCE. Goldberg authenticates POA forms and transmittal letters under oath. Sworn statements in federal court are binding party admissions usable in state court under CPLR 4517. Note: Exhibit C to DN 25 is text message excerpts, not the Goldberg Declaration. See GOLDBERG FEDERAL DECLARATION section above. | All elements | IDENTIFIED -- FULL TEXT NEEDED FROM PACER | Obtain full text from PACER (EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK — filed in support of Defendant's Motion for Sanctions, not DN 25). Extract all sworn statements and map to element framework. |
| Court reporter transcript (12/05/2025 oral decision) | Judge Maslow's reasoning for dismissing Counts I-IV and preserving Count V. May contain judicial findings favorable to plaintiff. | Legal framework | MISSING -- CRITICAL | Order from court reporter. This transcript would reveal what the court found sufficient to survive on Count V. |
| Bill of Particulars (NYSCEF Doc #68) | OBTAINED. Both demand and counter-demand now in the record. | All elements | OBTAINED | No further action needed. |
| Document | What It Would Prove | Element | Status | Action Required |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arbitration final award/decision (6/14/2023) | OBTAINED. Arbitrator found "Litman's status as Senior Counsel with NGM ceased by agreement of the parties on June 15, 2020." Characterized payments as "a royalty." Now integrated into Elements 2, 3, and Judicial Estoppel sections. | Elements 2, 3 | OBTAINED AND INTEGRATED | No further action needed. |
| Combination Agreement (full text) and Amendment | OBTAINED AND ANALYZED. Neither document contains any provision authorizing personal name use on patent filings. Zero mentions of "consent," "goodwill," or "Power of Attorney." Transfers limited to corporate stock, domains, phone numbers, and Customer Numbers. See COMBINATION AGREEMENT / AMENDMENT ANALYSIS section above. | Element 3 | OBTAINED AND INTEGRATED | Full provision-by-provision audit completed. See new section above. |
| RFA responses | 15 RFAs served January 28, 2026. Goldberg responded February 17, 2026. Key admissions: RFA Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 admitted (commercial purpose, fee generation, CN-37833, firm receipt of filings). RFA No. 7 denied (claims Agreements are consent -- contradicted by BOP "courtesy" admission). RFA Nos. 3, 14 evasive (claims inability to confirm own signatures despite federal authentication). | All elements | RECEIVED AND ANALYZED | Motion to deem RFA Nos. 3 and 14 admitted (evasive responses contradicted by federal authentication). Brief on RFA No. 7 contradiction with BOP Eighth Affirmative Defense. |
| Billing records / invoices (beyond KFU) | NGM billing records for KSU/KISR/other matters (2020-2025) would directly quantify commercial benefit beyond the KFU invoices now in the record. $16.2M accounting gap between trust ledger ($32.7M) and Goldberg's Revenue Workup ($16.5M) makes these records critical. KFU and KSU show $0 in Goldberg's Revenue sheet despite being 84% of payments. | Element 2 | KFU INVOICES OBTAINED (10/5/2024); OTHER CLIENTS NOT YET PRODUCED; $16.2M GAP IDENTIFIED | Demand remaining client billing records in discovery. Motion to compel may be needed given the magnitude of the accounting discrepancy. |
| Goldberg K-1 distributions | LLC profit-sharing records proving personal financial benefit from Litman-named matters. | Element 2 | NOT YET PRODUCED | Demand in discovery. |
| NYSCEF Docs #62-70 (complete set) | May include additional filings with admissions. Docs #65, #68, #70 partially obtained; gaps remain. | All elements | GAPS REMAIN | Complete download from NYSCEF. |
| Document | What It Would Prove | Element | Status | Action Required |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Client communications referencing Litman | Emails from KFU/KSU to NGM that reference Litman as their attorney would prove trade purpose (clients believed Litman was involved). | Element 2 | AVAILABLE IN 276K EMAIL ARCHIVE | Search email archive for client references to Litman's role. |
| Combination Agreement (full text) | OBTAINED AND ANALYZED. Full provision-by-provision audit completed. Neither agreement authorizes personal name use. See COMBINATION AGREEMENT / AMENDMENT ANALYSIS section above and MEDIUM PRIORITY entry above. | Element 3 | OBTAINED AND INTEGRATED | No further action needed. |
| Text messages (51-page exhibit) | OBTAINED. Full 51-page text message exhibit now analyzed and integrated into Elements 1, 3, and 4. Contains fraud acknowledgment (p.14), KFU volume confirmation (p.38), name-use confrontation with no response (p.47), and email cutoff (p.51). | Elements 1, 3, 4 | OBTAINED AND INTEGRATED | No further action needed. |
| Professional liability insurance certificate | OBTAINED AND ANALYZED. Scottsdale Insurance Policy No. FJS0001424, signed by Goldberg 7/6/2021, lists Litman as "OC" (Of Counsel). Premium $38,260. Policy period 7/8/2021-7/8/2022. See PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY POLICY section above. | Elements 1, 2, 3, 4 | OBTAINED AND INTEGRATED | New admission source mapped to all four elements. See new section above. |
| Document | What It Would Prove | Element | Status | Action Required |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goldberg's rolling production -- patent prosecution documents | Customer Number Data Sheets, POA transmittals, correspondence -- would show full scope of name use and Goldberg's personal involvement in each filing. | Elements 1, 2, 4 | NOT PRODUCED -- Goldberg promised "rolling basis" production, has not delivered | Motion to compel if not produced by next conference. CPLR 3124. |
| Website evidence (nathlaw.com changes) | Wayback Machine captures showing when and how Litman's profile was modified, removed, or replaced. | Elements 1, 4 | PARTIAL -- June 21, 2025 capture obtained; post-removal captures needed | Manual Wayback Machine browser capture for September 2025 and later. |
| Revenue records (client billing beyond KFU) | Full scope of commercial benefit from Litman-named matters across all clients (KSU, KISR, UAEU, Dasman, etc.). | Element 2 | NOT PRODUCED | Supplemental discovery demand. |
Box-2 decision-flip documentation (June 2024) (corrected 2026-04-26 — see output/SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md) |
Internal communications regarding the 6/5-6/12/2024 PTOL-85B Box-2 decision flip — the underlying decision moment that produced the downstream 1/14-1/21/2025 eGrant issuance flip. Specifically: any email, memo, Slack/Teams message, docketing-system change order, or template-update record between 5/15/2024 and 6/15/2024 instructing James Lafave (Reg. 71013) to change Box 2 Line 2 from "Richard C. Litman" to "Joshua B. Goldberg" on PTOL-85B forms charged to NGM Deposit Account 14-0112 on Customer No. 37833. Would prove consciousness of wrongdoing and either confirm Goldberg's direction or surface separate Lafave-as-direct-actor liability. | Element 4 | NOT PRODUCED — 276,000-document email production contains no responsive instruction email in the 5/15/2024–6/15/2024 window | Supplemental CPLR 3120 demand to NGM and CPLR 3119 subpoena to Lafave (out-of-state) — emails, memos, Slack/Teams messages, instructions to Lafave/Long/Goldberg/Meyer/Nath, and PracticeMaster/PC Law/PatentCenter access logs reflecting any Box 2 / template / customer-number-roster change in May-June 2024. |
| Martha Long solicitation communications | "I have worked with Richard Litman for 27 years" in prospective client emails -- using Litman's name/reputation to solicit new business. Now supplemented by "RCL origination credit" email showing internal attribution of client origination to Litman. | Element 2 | IDENTIFIED IN EMAIL ARCHIVE -- solicitations + origination credit email in hand; not yet formally demanded | Supplemental discovery demand for all client solicitations referencing Litman. |
| "The Pad" (Goldberg's internal tracking system) | Internal system tracking Litman-originated matters -- would show Goldberg's systematic use of Litman's name as a business asset. | Element 2 | IDENTIFIED -- not yet produced | Supplemental discovery demand. |
| Element | Admitted? | Key Admission | Remaining Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Use of name | YES -- Answer Paras. 32, 72; Professional Liability Policy; Goldberg Federal Declaration; RFA Nos. 2, 5, 6; NGM Federal Sanctions Brief; PI Opposition (5 judicial admissions); Hashtag Sports letter (7/24/2025) | "Plaintiff's name appeared on the front page of patents... and on NGM's website after June 15, 2020." Plus: Litman listed as "OC" on Scottsdale insurance application (7/6/2021). Goldberg authenticates POAs and all 6 exemplar patents' documents under oath (Exhibit A). NGM admits "only NGM attorneys" submitted POAs and Litman "does not appear" in filer fields. PI Opposition admits name use was a deliberate "practice" on "filings and client communications." Latest confirmed use: July 24, 2025 (Hashtag Sports trademark letter, 3 days post-lawsuit). | None. Element is fully admitted across four channels (patents, website, insurance, trademark practice), confirmed by Goldberg's own Exhibit A authentication, and reinforced by 5 judicial admissions through counsel in the PI Opposition. |
| 2. Trade purpose | ADMITTED BY GOLDBERG -- RFA No. 2 ties name use to fee generation; RFA No. 4 admits fee collection; BOP 5th Defense admits ongoing compensation; trust ledger; $16.2M accounting gap; PI Opposition admits revenue motive | RFA No. 2: name on Line 74 because Litman was "entitled to a percentage of the Firm's attorney's fees." RFA No. 4: firm collected fees, Litman received percentage. $24.5M in post-SOL receipts. $16.2M gap between trust ledger and Goldberg's Workup. BOP 8th Defense: name use was "purely a courtesy" (concedes discretionary, not required). PI Opposition: name use was "in both parties' financial interest" and motivated by "the revenue share" -- judicial admissions through counsel that cannot be withdrawn. | Billing records for non-KFU clients would further quantify per-matter revenue. |
| 3. Without consent | YES -- RFA No. 7 denial contradicted by BOP "courtesy" admission; Combination Agreement/Amendment audit; no consent document produced; NGM federal admission re: filer control; Arbitrator found "Goldberg is not a party to the contracts" (NYSCEF Doc 34) | Discovery Response #1: produced nothing. RFA No. 7: claims Agreements authorize use -- contradicted 9 days later by BOP "courtesy" characterization. Combination Agreement and Amendment contain ZERO provisions on personal name use. NGM admits "only NGM attorneys" submitted POAs. Text messages about "Senior Counsel" website status do not constitute consent to patent Line 74 use. Litman's 4/30/2021 email limits name rights. Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment recognizes Litman's name ownership. Full Arbitration Award: "Goldberg is not a party to the contracts" -- if not a party, he cannot derive consent from them. | Litman's sworn non-consent declaration (counsel/client action). Motion to deem RFA Nos. 3 and 14 admitted (evasive responses). |
| 4. Knowing/willful | YES -- Goldberg's own emails; Goldberg Federal Declaration + Exhibit A; RFA contradictions; NGM federal admissions; PI Opposition: name use was a deliberate "practice"; June 5-12, 2024 PTOL-85B Box-2 decision flip; Lafave 9/25/2024 self-attribution comparator | "Since we are the attorneys of record... Either a withdrawal of our Power of Attorney... needs to be filed" (1/17/2023). The 6/5-6/12/2024 PTOL-85B Box-2 decision flip — primary-source PDFs of three forms (last "Litman" 6/5/2024 on U.S. Pat. 12,116,333 + Design Pat. D1,046,141; first "Goldberg" 6/12/2024 on U.S. Pat. 12,060,336; all signed by James Lafave / Reg. 71013 / Deposit Acct. 14-0112 / CN-37833) — proves per-patent control and the actual decision moment. The 9/25/2024 Lafave self-attribution PTOL-85B on U.S. Pat. 12,127,901 (Box 2 Line 2 = "James Lafave") defeats automation/default defenses. The 1/14-1/21/2025 downstream eGrant issuance flip publishes the prior decision. Goldberg authenticates POAs under oath then claims "unable to admit or deny" his signatures 4 months later. RFA No. 10 claims Litman could remove his name -- contradicted by NGM's "only NGM attorneys submitted" admission. PI Opposition judicial admission: name use was a "practice" on "filings and client communications because of the revenue share." (corrected 2026-04-26 — Element 4 anchor moved from January 2025 eGrant flip to underlying June 2024 PTOL-85B Box-2 decision flip; see output/SWITCHOVER_ANCHOR_12060336.md.) |
Obtain full text of federal declaration from PACER. CPLR 3119 subpoena to Lafave for the May-June 2024 instruction. |
| 5. Publication | YES -- admitted in Answer; BOP 3rd Defense identifies first publication date (6/16/2020) | "patents" (plural) in Paras. 32, 72. Single publication defense concedes multiple publications. BOP 3rd Defense identifies Patent 10,683,577 B1 (6/16/2020) as "first publication" -- conceding publications began the day after the SOL cutoff. | Legal briefing on why each patent is a separate publication, not a single integrated work. Address federal preemption defense raised in BOP. |
| Personal liability | PROVEN -- 16 personal signatures; Exhibit A authentication; NGM federal admission | 16 POA forms personally signed by Goldberg (Reg. 44126), 12 post-arbitration. Dec. 21, 2023 dual-action day. Goldberg authenticated all 6 exemplar patents' documents under oath (Exhibit A). NGM admits "only NGM attorneys" submitted POAs. | None. Personal conduct is documented in federal records and authenticated by Goldberg himself. |
All USPTO documents (POA forms, assignment records, IFW data, patent front pages) are official records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. They are:
All email evidence is from the SharePoint archive produced by Goldberg in Discovery Response #5 (02/26/2026). Goldberg confirmed the production: "Defendant produced the data responsive to this request to Plaintiff on February 20, 2026."
Document: Federal complaint and annexed exhibits in Litman v. Nath, EDNY 1:25-cv-04048, together with pre-litigation Demand Letters 5, 6, and 7.
Significance: Consolidates multiple new Goldberg admissions and authenticated documents into a single federal-court record, now available for cross-use in the state-court § 51 case.
| Exhibit | Description | Element(s) Supported |
|---|---|---|
| E | January 31, 2023 text thread: Goldberg "I would think so" re honoring payments post-Meyer split | Personal Liability; Element 4 (knowing/willful) |
| F | Exhaustive compilation: "Use of Richard Litman's name after 2020" | Element 1 (omnibus inventory) |
| G | KSU-issued U.S. patent with Litman as attorney | Element 1 (institutional-client name use) |
| H | KFU-issued U.S. patent with Litman as attorney | Element 1 (institutional-client name use) |
| I | NGM's own "Updated Originated Clients List" | Element 2 (defendant-produced commercial scope) |
| J | $1,437,568 KSU wire transfer (Dec. 22, 2022) with Litman CC'd at rlitman@nathlaw.com | Element 2 (quantified commercial benefit) |
| K | June 7-8, 2020 emails — Goldberg-Litman agreed to conceal disability | Element 3 (concealment ≠ consent) |
| L | March 2021 — Meyer's written 5-year tail promise and trust-account assurance | Personal Liability (both partners personally obligated) |
| N | HARDCORE trademark registration under Litman's name | Element 1 (trademark channel) |
| R | CONTRACTUAL KILL-SHOT -- signed, recorded asset-sale / trademark-assignment carving out Litman's "name, signature, voice, image, photograph or likeness" | Element 3 (dispositive non-transfer of § 50/51 rights) |
| Amount | Source | What It Represents |
|---|---|---|
| $3,222,408.29 | Federal demand (filed) | Total damages sought in the federal complaint |
| $2,599,640.05 | Demand Letter 7 | Outstanding principal owed |
| $16,202,064.16 | Exhibit A | "Erased discrepancy" between trust ledger and Goldberg's Revenue Workup |
| $5,876,080.66 | Exhibit A / Demand Letters | Full 20% entitlement on Litman-originated revenue |
| $29,380,403.30 | Demand Letters 5, 6, 7 | Total Litman-Originated revenue (commercial benefit denominator for Element 2 / punitive damages) |
These figures stack with the defensible anchor range ($424K–$928K per Finding #49), the 21-month fee-credit Fees-only baseline ($1,731,898 per Finding #66), the NGM-produced 22/24-month totals ($2,108,387 / $2,412,428), and the KFU-only unpaid share ($1.98M per Finding #51; $13.93M per KFU universe expansion). The $16.2M "erased discrepancy" corresponds to the $32.7M trust ledger vs. $16.5M Goldberg Workup gap cataloged at Finding #19.
Arbitration Award (6/14/2023): "NGM was created as the alter ego for its partners."
This is the arbitrator's own finding -- not plaintiff's characterization. It independently supports piercing the LLC veil under NY LLC Law § 609 in addition to the Turane personal-participation test. Personal liability is now established on two independent grounds: (i) 16 personal POA signatures satisfying Turane, and (ii) the arbitrator's express alter-ego finding.
All three from Goldberg, all in the 5-day window January 29 – February 2, 2023:
Collectively, these three statements establish the mental state underlying (a) the § 51 knowing/willful element, (b) the punitive damages entitlement, and (c) the accounting manipulation pattern documented at Findings #19, #50, #51, #53, and #62.
Goldberg has taken two irreconcilable positions under oath in two different proceedings:
Position 1 -- Arbitration (McCammon Group, Case No. 2022001552, 2023): Goldberg argued that the Combination Agreement terminated on June 15, 2020. His own email (9/17/2020) proposed "treat it like death, thereby instituting the five-year period starting 6/15/2020." His post-arbitration brief (5/24/2023) stated "The Parties performed in accordance with termination for three years." He successfully obtained rulings based on this position.
Position 2 -- NY State Court (Index No. 524343/2025, Affirmative Defense #10): Goldberg asserts that "Plaintiff's claims are barred based on his implied and/or express consent" -- relying on the Combination Agreement and Litman's pre-termination communications as the source of that consent. This defense necessarily implies the agreement remained operative and authorized post-6/15/2020 name use.
Under New York law, judicial estoppel prevents a party from "assuming a position in one legal proceeding inconsistent with a position taken in a prior proceeding" where: (1) the party's position was clearly inconsistent with the earlier position; (2) the prior position was adopted by the court or relied upon to gain an advantage; and (3) the party would derive an unfair advantage if permitted to take the inconsistent position. See Environmental Concern, Inc. v. Larchwood Construction Corp., 101 A.D.3d 24 (2d Dept. 2012).
The arbitrator's exact findings now confirm the factual basis:
All three prongs are met:
Inconsistency: "The agreement terminated 6/15/2020" (arbitration) vs. "The agreement authorizes post-6/15/2020 name use" (state court) are mutually exclusive positions. A terminated agreement cannot simultaneously authorize conduct that occurs after its termination.
Prior adoption: Goldberg's termination-date position was the basis for the arbitration proceedings and the royalty calculations he sought. He prevailed on or benefited from this position in the arbitration.
Unfair advantage: Allowing Goldberg to claim in state court that the very same agreement he said terminated in 2020 somehow authorizes name use through 2025 would give him a windfall -- the benefit of termination (limiting royalty obligations) AND the benefit of continuation (escaping Section 51 liability).
Goldberg's Reply to Motion to Dismiss (2/9/2023) argued: "Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Meyer were not parties to the Combination Agreement, and owed no such duties to Claimant." The Full Arbitration Award (NYSCEF Doc 34) confirmed this position, with the arbitrator explicitly finding: "Goldberg is not a party to the contracts." This creates a second, independently fatal estoppel problem: if Goldberg was not a party to the agreement -- as both he and the arbitrator agree -- he cannot derive consent from it. He must choose one position:
There is no Option C. The arbitrator's finding that "Goldberg is not a party to the contracts" forecloses Option A entirely, leaving only Option B -- under which Goldberg has no contractual basis for consent.
This judicial estoppel argument should be raised in opposition to any summary judgment motion by Goldberg on the consent defense, and affirmatively in plaintiff's own summary judgment motion on Element 3. The arbitration record (briefs, motions, declarations, and the 9/17/2020 email) should be annexed as exhibits. The contrast between Goldberg's two positions is devastating and should be presented side-by-side for maximum impact.
This matrix contains only verified admissions with exact quotes and specific document references. No inference is presented as admission. Gaps are flagged where additional documents are needed.