Prepared: 2026-04-02 Source Documents Reviewed: 1. Third Amended Complaint (FINAL VERSION) -- 27 pages + 4 exhibits 2. Letter for First Amended Complaint (Aug. 13, 2025) -- cover letter to Judge Kuo 3. Second Amended Complaint (SAC) -- state court filing (Kings County, Index No. 524343/2025)
The federal complaint asserts four causes of action, all under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1125(a):
| Count | Claim | Statute | Theory |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | False Endorsement | 15 U.S.C. section 1125(a)(1)(A) | Website listings ("Patent Attorney" / "Patent Attorney (Retired)") falsely suggested Litman endorsed or supervised NGM's services |
| II | False Affiliation / False Association | 15 U.S.C. section 1125(a)(1)(A) | Public designations created misleading impression Litman maintained ongoing connection with NGM |
| III | False Designation of Origin | 15 U.S.C. section 1125(a)(1)(A) | USPTO filings listing Litman as attorney of record falsely designated origin of legal services |
| IV | False Advertising / Misrepresentation | 15 U.S.C. section 1125(a)(1)(B) | Website, Google-indexed pages, email signatures, and USPTO listings misrepresented the identity of the responsible practitioner |
Note: The federal case was voluntarily dismissed. These causes of action were never adjudicated on the merits. The federal complaint's factual allegations, however, were made under penalty of perjury (Verification clause, p. 26) and constitute Litman's sworn factual account.
The SAC (state court) takes a different approach, focusing on: - Equitable accounting of vested purchase price payments - Constructive trust over misappropriated revenues - Damages for identity exploitation
The SAC specifically raises the $16 million revenue discrepancy and the accounting fraud theory -- claims not present in the federal complaint. The state case targets Goldberg individually; the federal case targeted NGM as entity.
Website (Para. 50-52): - Listed Litman as "PATENT ATTORNEY" for years after termination - After objection, changed to "PATENT ATTORNEY (RETIRED)" -- falsely suggesting he remained associated while merely retired - Exhibits B and C are website screenshots (text captured in PDF)
USPTO Filings (Para. 53-56): - Filed new applications listing Litman as attorney of record / correspondence attorney after 6/15/2020 - Each filing = false certification under 37 C.F.R. section 11.18(b) and false designation of origin under Lanham Act - Exhibit A contains "Representative USPTO Front Pages Showing Plaintiff Falsely Listed as Attorney of Record Post-June 14, 2023"
Client-Facing (Para. 57-59): - Continued referencing Litman's personal goodwill and reputation to retain Middle East institutional clients - Did so despite knowing Litman was no longer affiliated
Exhibit R (Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment, May 2021): Goldberg signed a document expressly stating "Assignor retains ownership of his personal name, signature, likeness, image, and persona." This is the single most powerful admission in the entire case -- Goldberg's own signed writing destroys his consent defense.
Arbitration Award (June 14, 2023): Determined Plaintiff's affiliation terminated effective June 15, 2020. Goldberg's own position was that the relationship ended retroactively on that date.
"As if he had died" (SAC Para. 15): Goldberg's position in arbitration was that Litman's physical disability should be treated "as if he had died" with termination retroactive to 6/15/2020.
Implicit Admission of Control (Para. 48-56): The complaint's structure establishes that NGM/Goldberg had sole control over what name appeared on USPTO filings and the website -- Litman "had no involvement and no knowledge of the filings."
The federal complaint seeks:
The SAC contains factual claims NOT in the federal complaint:
| Exhibit | Description | Evidence We Already Have? |
|---|---|---|
| A | Representative USPTO Front Pages (Post-6/14/2023) -- 6 patents | YES -- we have 12 annotated patent front pages, 905-patent dataset, and post-switchover analysis |
| B | Website screenshot: "PATENT ATTORNEY" listing | YES -- we have nathlaw.com website screenshots from Wayback Machine |
| C | Website screenshot: "PATENT ATTORNEY (RETIRED)" listing | YES -- we have this screenshot |
| R | 2021 Trademark Assignment Nunc Pro Tunc | YES -- this is the Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment at Reel 007281, Frame 0821 that we have documented extensively |
| Federal Complaint Allegation | Our Evidence |
|---|---|
| Litman listed as attorney on patents post-6/15/2020 | 905-patent dataset; 206 outgoing USPTO documents identified |
| Goldberg signed POAs causing Litman's name to appear | 16 of 21 POAs with Goldberg's signature confirmed via OCR |
| Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment reserves Litman's identity | Assignment at Reel 007281, Frame 0821; documented in MECHANISM_OF_LIABILITY_MEMO.md |
| Website listing as "Patent Attorney" | Wayback Machine screenshots through June 21, 2025 |
| Website listing as "Patent Attorney (Retired)" | Wayback Machine screenshot |
| Website removal by Sept 2025 | Sept 5, 2025 screenshot shows Litman removed entirely |
| King Faisal University / King Saud University clients | KFU = 467+ patents; KSU = 2 new patents (12,227,748 and 12,303,254) |
| Arbitration award terminating affiliation 6/15/2020 | Award obtained 03/27/2026 |
| "As if he had died" argument | Documented in RESEARCH_LOG and text message thread |
| Post-termination USPTO filings | 21 IFW JSON files from USPTO API confirming filing chain |
| Jan 2025 attorney name switchover | Litman to Goldberg between Jan 14-21, 2025; 205 post-switchover patents |
| $16M accounting gap | Documented: $32.7M trust vs. $16.5M workup |
| Health insurance leverage | Cheryl's Crohn's disease; documented in text messages |
| Client drawn by Litman's name | Thomas Bennington (July 3, 2025): "a customer of Richard Litman's from way back" |
| Personal goodwill with clients | Omar Albannai (Aug 17, 2025): "East or west Richard is the best" |
Per Doc #65 (Jan. 20, 2026 Answer in state case): - ADMITS Litman's name appeared on patent front pages (Para. 32) - ADMITS Litman's name appeared on NGM website after 6/15/2020 (Para. 72) - DENIES he "caused" name to appear (Para. 33) -- contradicted by 16 POA signatures
"Nephew of the King of Saudi Arabia" invitation (Para. 10, 64): Litman states he was "personally invited by the nephew of the King of Saudi Arabia to support the Kingdom's innovation initiative." This specific royal connection has not been separately documented in our evidence corpus. It strengthens the personal goodwill argument -- these were not generic client relationships but ones flowing from Litman's personal status.
Google-indexed pages claim (Para. 96): The federal complaint specifically alleges Google-indexed pages and email signatures as additional channels of false representation, beyond the website and USPTO. Google indexing creates additional "publications" for section 51 purposes in the state case.
"Each instance... a separate violation" (Para. 62): Litman explicitly argued in federal court that "Each instance of Defendant's commercial use of Plaintiff's identity constitutes a separate violation" -- this mirrors and supports our "deck of cards" theory for the state case (each USPTO document = separate section 51 use).
Federal regulatory void argument (Para. 41-46): The complaint argues that even if consent existed, it would be void as a matter of federal law because 37 C.F.R. prohibits delegation of practitioner identity. This argument -- that consent is legally impossible for USPTO identity -- has not been fully developed in our state case materials. It could be deployed to defeat Goldberg's Affirmative Defense #10 (consent) on pure legal grounds.
Five service marks transferred (Para. 27): The Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment identified only 5 service marks that were transferred. "Richard C. Litman" was not among them; only corporate marks like "Litman Law Offices, Ltd." were conveyed. This specificity strengthens the "what is not assigned is retained" argument.
New accounting system allegation (Para. 2): Goldberg "transitioned to a new accounting system that erased or misclassified revenues tied to Plaintiff's originated clients, reclassified millions as 'retainers,' booked phantom payments, and concealed historical data." This is more specific than what we have documented about the accounting fraud.
$2M KFU collection by Litman personally (Para. 15): Litman "personally interceded to collect approximately $2 million from University 1" -- and Goldberg claimed the firm had "stopped work for the client." This contradicts the disability=death theory (if Litman was "dead" to the firm, why was he collecting from clients?).
The federal complaint, verified under penalty of perjury, contains Litman's sworn account of the facts. More importantly, Goldberg's positions in the federal case (via his counsel's filings and the sanctions brief) contain admissions. The voluntary dismissal does not erase statements made during the litigation. Any position Goldberg took in the federal case that contradicts his state court defenses is subject to judicial estoppel.
Specific application: If Goldberg argued in the federal case that the agreement authorized name use (to defeat Lanham Act claims), he cannot argue in state court that there was no "use" or that it was merely incidental.
The federal complaint's treatment of Exhibit R (Para. 25-33) provides a ready-made legal framework for defeating Affirmative Defense #10 (consent) in the state MSJ: - Goldberg signed a document expressly reserving Litman's identity rights - The document is the "only written instrument addressing identity rights" - "What is not assigned is retained" - "Consent cannot be implied where a written contract expressly reserves rights"
Para. 62's formulation ("Each instance of Defendant's commercial use of Plaintiff's identity constitutes a separate violation") was Litman's position in federal court. This directly supports the "deck of cards" theory in the state case -- each of the 206 outgoing USPTO documents is a separate section 51 "publication."
The argument at Para. 36-46 (USPTO identity is non-delegable under federal law) provides an independent basis to defeat the consent defense: even if Litman had consented, such consent would be void as against federal regulatory policy. This argument has not yet been fully deployed in the state MSJ materials.
The SAC's framing (Para. 4) -- "treating Plaintiff as 'dead' to cut off payments while treating him as 'alive' to profit from his name" -- is a powerful rhetorical frame for willfulness in the state case. Goldberg cannot have it both ways.
Because the Third Amended Complaint was verified under penalty of perjury, Litman's own factual allegations are admissible as his sworn statements. Key ones to cite: - Para. 1: Sale transferred practice but not identity - Para. 7: Goldberg's written admission in Exhibit R - Para. 21: Litman performed no substantive legal work after the sale - Para. 53-55: Litman had "no knowledge of and no involvement in" the post-termination filings
| Feature | Federal (EDNY) | State (Kings County) |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | NGM (entity) | Goldberg (individual) |
| Cause of action | Lanham Act section 43(a) -- 4 counts | NY Civil Rights Law sections 50-51 (Count V only survives) |
| Identity theory | False endorsement, false origin, false advertising | Misappropriation of name for commercial purposes |
| Damages theory | Disgorgement + treble damages + attorney's fees | Actual damages + potentially punitive |
| Accounting claims | Not included | $16M discrepancy, constructive trust, equitable accounting |
| Status | Voluntarily dismissed | Active -- BOPs due 04/02/2026 |
| Verification | Under penalty of perjury | Standard pleading |
evidence/gmail_batch2/ThirdAmended__Third Amended Complaint FINAL VERSION .pdfevidence/gmail_batch2/LetterFAC__Letter for First Amended Complaint.pdfevidence/gmail_batch2/SAC_Complaint__SAC_Litman_v_Goldberg_Maslow_Compliant_Revised.docx