← litmanintelligence.com  |  ← Counsel PDFs index  |  Counsel dashboard

Fee Baseline Memo 20260416

FEE BASELINE MEMO — ABSENT ACCOUNTING RECORDS

Case: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 Court: N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings County — Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C. Surviving claim: Count V — N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 (misappropriation of name) Prepared: April 16, 2026 Prepared for: Richard C. Litman and trial counsel Purpose: Establish the damages-baseline rule to be applied to any matter for which NGM has failed to produce the underlying accounting records.


1. The Rule (Verbatim, per Richard Litman, 04/16/2026)

Where NGM has failed to produce accounting records for a given matter — including suppressed Payment Allocation Reports (see Finding #50) and the Trust Register concealment (Finding #99) — damages shall be calculated using the following baseline:

Rationale: The plaintiff is not to be penalized for the defendants' service deficiencies or discovery suppression. All quoted pricing shall be treated as applicable to the matters on which it was offered.


2. Why the Rule Is Necessary

NGM's discovery production is known to be incomplete on at least three fronts:

  1. Active concealment of the July 2025 Payment Allocation Report. The report was generated by NGM on August 11, 2025 but withheld for eight months (Finding #50).
  2. Continuing non-production of the August and September 2025 Payment Allocation Reports. Almost certainly covered by the same concealment pattern (Open Gap #21).
  3. Trust Register concealment surrounding the Freedom Bank account 220001028. NGM's own Trust Register dated 6/30/2025 contained the account; the Schaefer/Kren 6/26/25 summary excluded it (Finding #99).

A damages rule that required Plaintiff to produce what Defendants have concealed would reward the concealment. The $15,000 – $20,000 per patent baseline is therefore applied as the working floor.


3. Cross-Client Rate Map (refined 04/16/2026)

The rate picture across NGM's institutional book of business, after today's corpus-wide sweep, is as follows. No single flat rate governs every client; three tiers are distinguishable.

Client Flat-Fee Appendix A in Corpus? Documented Rate Tier Source
KISR — Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research ✅ 2018 + 2019 $15,000/patent (2018)$16,000/patent (2019) (routine U.S. non-provisional, comprehensive flat fee incl. USPTO fees) Institutional flat-fee website/email_attachments/C2051472_ND0000271385/KISR NGM 2018 Service Agreement Appendix A.docx; /C2051472_ND0000271635/KISR NGM 2019 Service Agreement Quotation.docx
Kuwait University (KU) ❌ not in corpus $11,300/patent (Martha Long written quote, Nov 2020 — post-SOL) Institutional flat-fee (discounted) Bates C2051472_ND0000004095–4098
UAEU — United Arab Emirates University $9,530 – $13,155 initial work per patent; variable thereafter Task-based (T&M) website/email_attachments/C2051472_ND0000269312/UAEU Trust 7.13.2020.pdf; UAEU May 2022 SoA
KSU — King Saud University Docket invoices $1,000 – $13,000 (partial-stage billing only) Unclear; no Appendix A documented King Saud Trust 7.13.2020.pdf
KFU — King Faisal University (NGM's largest client) ❌ (general engagement letter only, Jan 2024) "customary rates or flat fees as agreed" — no per-patent rate documented in produced records Unknown Bates C2051472_ND0000236084
Dasman Diabetes Institute Hourly (T&M) — NGM's own client list shows RATE: 'a' Not flat-fee NGM_Client_List.xlsx; Payment DDI.pdf 2023 ($31,870 annual total)

Two additional categories stack on top:


4. Tier Analysis

Tier 1 — Institutional flat-fee (documented). KISR at $15K/$16K and KU at $11.3K. These are the only two clients for whom a per-patent flat rate is documented in the produced record. KISR 2019 Appendix A states that the comprehensive flat fee "saves almost $1,000" against standalone pricing — NGM's own admission that unbundled institutional standalone pricing is ~$17,000. Everything excluded from the KISR bundle (continuations, RCEs, PCT national-phase, appeals, maintenance fees) is separately billed on top.

Tier 2 — Task-based / time-and-materials. UAEU and Dasman are demonstrably billed on a per-task or hourly basis, not per patent. A per-patent damages baseline is not directly comparable for these clients; their damages computation must run on an as-billed or hourly-reconstruction basis. Quantifying these clients requires the underlying Soluno task detail that NGM has not produced.

Tier 3 — Undocumented (fee schedule not in evidence). KFU and KSU. The KFU general engagement letter references "customary rates or flat fees as agreed" but no per-patent schedule has been produced — notable given KFU is NGM's largest single client (1,067 dockets, 781 issued or allowed). KSU likewise has no Appendix A in the corpus. For these two clients specifically, the $15K – $20K baseline is the only defensible quantification absent the suppressed billing detail.


5. Mathematical Bounds

These bounds apply to the institutional flat-fee tier and to clients for whom no fee schedule has been produced (Tier 1 + Tier 3). Task-based matters (UAEU, Dasman — Tier 2) require separate per-matter computation on an as-billed basis and are not covered by the blanket application below.

Aggregate Bounds on the 905-Patent Universe

Scenario Patent Count Rate Fee Base Litman 20% Share
Low (905 × $15,000) 905 $15,000 $13,575,000 $2,715,000
High (905 × $20,000) 905 $20,000 $18,100,000 $3,620,000

Post-Arbitration Subset (6/14/2023 forward, 640 patents)

Scenario Patent Count Rate Fee Base Litman 20% Share
Post-arbitration × $15K 640 $15,000 $9,600,000 $1,920,000
Post-arbitration × $20K 640 $20,000 $12,800,000 $2,560,000

13 Post-SOL-Safe Patents (7/21/2024 – 1/14/2025)

Scenario Patent Count Rate Fee Base Litman 20% Share
13 × $15K 13 $15,000 $195,000 $39,000
13 × $20K 13 $20,000 $260,000 $52,000

Low-end defense ($15K floor). KISR 2018 sits at $15K on the nose; KU's $11.3K and individual-inventor $12K – $16K quotes confirm the real-world floor for institutional flat-fee work is ~$11K – $12K at the bottom, not below. Averaging the excluded-category separate billing (continuations, RCEs, maintenance) back into a blended per-patent rate pulls the floor up to $15K.

High-end defense ($20K ceiling). KISR 2019 at $16K + NGM's own "saves almost $1,000" admission → ~$17K standalone comprehensive. Complex matters excluded from Appendix A (continuations, RCEs, PCT, appeals — every one of which is billed separately) routinely push total per-patent cost to $20K+. $20K is a conservative ceiling on institutional bundled pricing with the excluded-category pass-throughs folded back in.

USPTO fees advanced on any given matter are additive and recoverable as out-of-pocket expense regardless of tier.


6. Application Alongside Existing Damages Anchors

The fee baseline is additive to — and does not displace — any of the existing damages anchors in the record:

Anchor Amount Basis
Defensible floor $424,000 – $928,000 NGM-produced 22/24-month totals × 20% (Finding #49)
21-month time-series $1,731,898 21 monthly PARs × 20% (Finding #66)
Plaintiff's reconstructed total $2,403,125.66 6/26/25 Kren report (Finding #95)
KFU Exhibit A total recovery $13,933,000 KFU unbilled + trust + unpaid 20% (Finding #51)
KISR 2018 / 2019 documented rate $15,000 / $16,000 per patent Appendix A + 2019 Quotation
KU Martha Long quote (Nov 2020) $11,300 per patent Bates C2051472_ND0000004095–4098
Individual-inventor engagement band $12K – $16K full prosecution Martha Long 2021–2022 corpus
MSJ Point III published range $6.1M – $77.9M Compensatory + punitive spectrum
Fee baseline (905 × $15K–$20K) $13.6M – $18.1M (fee base) / $2.72M – $3.62M (20%) This memo

Where the produced-record methodologies yield a figure for a particular matter, that figure controls. Where they do not — because the underlying records are suppressed or unavailable — the fee baseline applies as a matter of equity and of Defendants' burden as the party in possession of the billing system.


7. Identified Written Fee Schedules in the Record

  1. KISR Service Agreement — Flat-Fee Appendix A (2018-12-06). Bates C2051472_ND0000271385. Comprehensive flat fee USD 15,000 per routine U.S. non-provisional patent application, USPTO fees included. 2019 successor at Bates C2051472_ND0000271635 raises the comprehensive fee to USD 16,000 and itemizes the attorney-only build-up (prep $8,600 / prioritized-exam prep $500 / 4-week expedite $1,000 / prosecution $3,000 / issuance $550) plus government fees ($785 filing / $2,070 prioritized / $500 issue) and a $500 prior-art search line. Full extract: output/KISR_APPENDIX_A_RATES_EXTRACT_20260416.md.

  2. Kuwait University — Martha Long written quote (Nov 2020). Bates C2051472_ND0000004095–4098. $11,300/patent institutional discounted flat rate.

  3. UAEU Trust docket worksheets (2020; May 2022 SoA). website/email_attachments/C2051472_ND0000269312/UAEU Trust 7.13.2020.pdf. Task-based $9,530 – $13,155 initial-work range per patent.

  4. Martha Long individual-inventor engagement-letter email bodies (2021–2022). Moustafa LITMAN178328; Adel Abdulla/ORGO LITMAN179923, LITMAN180797; Jonathan Martin LITMAN233820, LITMAN233829. Headline rates: $500 search + $5,000 – $12,000 application-prep + ~$2,600 prioritized-examination. The underlying PDF attachments are NOT present in the discovery production — native .msg production should be demanded for Bates C2051472_ND0000176330, _ND0000177875, _ND0000178849, _ND0000231772, _ND0000231781. Full extract: output/MARTHA_LONG_ENGAGEMENT_LETTERS_RATES_20260416.md.

  5. Invoice record at Bates C2051472_ND0000272234. Candidate second fee-schedule document referenced by Richard Litman; content pending extraction.


8. Open Items


This memo is additive to the existing damages record. It does not replace the per-patent allocation model in output/DAMAGES_SUMMARY.md, the MSJ Point III brief at output/POINT_III_DAMAGES_DRAFT.md, the variance model at output/VARIANCE_DAMAGES_MODEL_VERIFIED.md, or the settlement leverage analysis at output/SETTLEMENT_LEVERAGE_MEMO_2026-04-07.md — each of which has been updated to reference this baseline rule. Cross-references: output/KISR_APPENDIX_A_RATES_EXTRACT_20260416.md, output/MARTHA_LONG_ENGAGEMENT_LETTERS_RATES_20260416.md.