Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 NY Sup. Ct., Kings County | Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C.
Plaintiff: Richard C. Litman Prepared: April 6, 2026
Joshua B. Goldberg maintained an internal tracking spreadsheet for Litman-originated patent matters in which he used a color-coding system to track patent status. In that spreadsheet, "Green lettering = patent granted but expired for failure to pay MF [maintenance fee]." At least 18 patents bear this green-letter designation, indicating they were allowed to lapse for non-payment of maintenance fees while under Goldberg's management and while Litman's name remained as the attorney of record on those patents at the USPTO.
This finding is significant for two independent reasons:
Reputational Harm: Litman's name, as the attorney of record, is permanently associated with patents that expired due to administrative neglect. Any patent holder, opposing counsel, or prospective client who examines these patents will see Litman's name on a patent that lapsed -- creating an inference of professional negligence attributable to Litman.
Duty of Care: Goldberg used Litman's professional identity to obtain and prosecute these patents, yet failed to discharge the basic professional obligation of ensuring maintenance fee compliance. The attorney whose name appears on the patent bears the reputational consequence of that failure, regardless of who was actually managing the matter.
Under 35 U.S.C. Section 41(b), maintenance fees must be paid at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after a patent's issue date to keep the patent in force. Failure to pay results in expiration of the patent. The correspondence address on file with the USPTO determines who receives maintenance fee reminders. For all patents listing Litman as attorney, that correspondence address was Customer Number 37833 -- controlled exclusively by Goldberg.
The attorney of record listed on Line 74 of the patent front page is "Richard C. Litman." That name remains permanently on the issued patent even after expiration. There is no mechanism to remove the attorney's name from an expired patent. The professional association is permanent.
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Patent Number | 9,702,837 |
| Client | Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research (KISR) |
| NGM Docket | 32366.05 |
| Issue Date | July 11, 2017 |
| Maintenance Fee Due | 2nd MF, due approx. January 2025 |
| Status | Expired -- non-payment confirmed |
| Attorney of Record | Richard C. Litman |
| Source | January 9, 2025 email: Ahmad Ibrahim Haji (KISR) instructed "KISR will not process the 2nd US Maintenance Fee for Docket 32366.05." Martha Long directed docketing: "Do NOT Pay 2nd Maintenance Fee." Patent went abandoned. |
Key Facts: This patent was allowed to expire while Goldberg was actively visiting KISR in Kuwait (February 2025) and soliciting continued business from the same client. Litman was not consulted about or informed of the decision to let this patent expire, despite his name appearing as attorney of record.
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Patent Number | 10,856,925 |
| Client | David Pontell, D.P.M. |
| NGM Docket | 29986.01 |
| Issue Date | December 8, 2020 |
| Title | System and Method for Surgical Correction of Bunion |
| 1st Maintenance Fee Due | June 8, 2024 (with surcharge through December 8, 2024) |
| Status | Nearly expired; rescued by Litman's personal intervention |
| Attorney of Record | Richard C. Litman |
| Source | December 5-6, 2024 email chain: Litman to Goldberg re "Maintenance Fee - Dr David Pontell" |
Key Facts: Litman personally contacted Dr. Pontell about an unrelated matter and discovered that the client had received no notification about the maintenance fee. Martha Long confirmed to Litman that the firm had stopped sending maintenance fee reminders to individual domestic inventors. Pontell's maintenance fee was due with surcharge on December 8, 2024 -- only three days after Litman caught the problem. Goldberg's response blamed unnamed staff, calling it "a fireable offense" -- but the systemic failure to send reminders was a management decision, not an individual error.
Litman specifically flagged additional clients at risk: Kan Cui and George Petito ("May want to go back and look at maintenance fee payments for Kan Cui, George Petito and others the firm wants to keep").
The following Litman-originated clients have confirmed patents issued post-6/15/2020 and appear in maintenance fee records:
| Client | Patent Number | Issue Date | Docket | Maintenance Fee Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ambrosino, Eric P. | (linked to Docket 25219.02) | Pre-2020 original | 25219.02 | Maintenance Fee docket opened 3/22/2021 |
| Pryputniewicz, Nicholas D. | 7,487,975 | Pre-2020 original | 27580.00 | Maintenance Fee Statement, 10/8/2020 |
| Riordan, Joseph | (linked to Docket 31444.00) | Pre-2020 original | 31444.00 | 3rd Maintenance Fee with Surcharge paid 8/27/2024 -- note surcharge indicates late payment |
| Petito, George D. | 11,071,758 | July 27, 2021 | 11719.35 | Specifically named by Litman as at risk (Dec 2024) |
| Kan Cui | (linked to Docket per financial records) | Post-2020 | Unknown | Specifically named by Litman as at risk (Dec 2024); invoice #332617, $1,954 on 12/27/2024 not allocated to Litman |
An analysis of all Litman-originated invoices reveals only 45 invoices coded as "Maintenance Fee Payment" at $865 each, out of a total practice generating 905 issued patents post-6/15/2020 alone. For 905 patents, there should be hundreds of maintenance fee events across the 3.5-year, 7.5-year, and 11.5-year windows. The ratio of 45 maintenance fee invoices to 905 patents indicates a systemic gap in maintenance fee management.
In the December 5, 2024 email chain, Martha Long told Litman that "individuals were notified of impending maintenance fees when the patent is sent to them and [were] no longer being reminded." This confirms a deliberate management decision to cease maintenance fee monitoring for domestic clients. The consequences of that decision -- patents expiring for non-payment -- fall on the attorney of record: Richard C. Litman.
Goldberg's own internal spreadsheet identifies at least 18 patents that "expired for failure to pay MF." The specific patent numbers in this category are contained in Goldberg's spreadsheet, which has not been produced in discovery. These are Litman-originated patents, managed by Goldberg, bearing Litman's name as attorney -- and now expired through administrative neglect.
The expiration of patents bearing Litman's name as attorney of record compounds the harm from the underlying name misappropriation. Each expired patent is a permanent public record associating Litman with professional failure. Unlike an active patent -- which at least reflects successful prosecution -- an expired patent reflects neglect by the attorney whose name appears on it. Goldberg caused Litman's name to appear on these patents (through POA signatures directing prosecution to Customer Number 37833), then allowed the patents to lapse through administrative failure. The reputational association is permanent and irremediable.
Goldberg's willingness to let Litman-branded patents expire demonstrates that his use of Litman's name was purely exploitative -- he valued the name for attracting and retaining clients, but felt no corresponding obligation to protect the professional reputation that name carried. This is inconsistent with any claim that the name use was authorized, consensual, or in Litman's interest.
As the attorney of record, Litman would be the target of any malpractice claim by a patent holder whose patent expired for non-payment. Goldberg's management decisions created this exposure without Litman's knowledge or consent. Litman had no authority to manage the docketing system, no access to Customer Number 37833's correspondence, and no ability to monitor maintenance fee deadlines -- yet his name bears the professional risk.
The full list of 18+ expired patents identified by "green lettering" in Goldberg's spreadsheet should be demanded in discovery. For each expired patent, the following must be produced:
| Document | Description | Location |
|---|---|---|
| Goldberg Internal Tracking Spreadsheet | Contains "green lettering" color-coded notation for 18+ expired patents | Not yet produced in discovery; referenced in RESEARCH_LOG.md, Finding #44 |
| Dec 5-6, 2024 Email Chain: "Maintenance Fee - Dr David Pontell" | Litman alerts Goldberg to maintenance fee failure; Goldberg blames staff; Martha Long confirms reminders discontinued | Email archive: ND0000263764, ND0000263765, ND0000263767, ND0000263768 |
| Jan 9, 2025 KISR Correspondence | KISR Patent 9,702,837 abandoned for non-payment of 2nd maintenance fee | KISR email timeline; Docket 32366.05 |
| RL Client List (Soluno Export) | All Litman-originated clients and dockets including maintenance fee entries | output/goldberg_financial_attachments/20250616_RL_Client_List.csv |
| Fixed Fee Invoice Analysis | Only 45 maintenance fee invoices identified at $865 each across entire practice | output/FIXED_FEE_INVOICE_ANALYSIS.md |
| KISR Email Timeline | Full chronology including expired patent and maintenance fee payments | output/KISR_EMAIL_TIMELINE.md |
| Docket Invoice Gap Analysis | Shows Pontell docket 29986.01 with $14,055 trust-vs-paid gap | output/DOCKET_INVOICE_GAP_ANALYSIS.md |
Goldberg used Litman's name to prosecute patents, collected fees from clients attracted by Litman's reputation, and then allowed at least 18 of those patents to expire for failure to pay maintenance fees. Litman had no control over the docketing system, no access to the correspondence address (CN-37833), and was not informed of the expirations. When Litman independently discovered the maintenance fee crisis in December 2024, he intervened to save Dr. Pontell's patent with only days to spare -- and identified additional clients at risk. Goldberg blamed staff rather than acknowledging the systemic management failure.
Each expired patent bearing Litman's name is a permanent record of professional neglect attributed to Litman. This constitutes both a direct aggravation of the name misappropriation damages and an independent basis for damages arising from reputational harm to Litman's professional identity.
The full inventory of 18+ expired patents must be obtained through discovery of Goldberg's color-coded spreadsheet.