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

Five Uncredited Kfu Dockets Memo

MEMORANDUM — Five Uncredited KFU Dockets and Related Trust Anomalies

To: Counsel for Richard C. Litman From: Litigation Support Team Date: April 6, 2026 Re: Litman v. Goldberg — Identification of the five King Faisal University dockets flagged by Mr. Litman as "uncredited," cross-reference to produced trust ledger and receivables data, and related KISR/KSU accounting irregularities Status: Litigation Work Product — Privileged and Confidential

1. Executive Summary

On June 7, 2025, Richard Litman sent Joshua Goldberg an email titled "King Faisal University Reconciliation, 676+ clients & 5000+/- matters," in which he expressly identified five King Faisal University ("KFU") dockets that had received trust payments but for which his 20% originating-attorney allocation had not been credited. Litman has since reiterated to undersigned that these five dockets are central to the accounting-fraud component of the case, characterizing the pattern as: search-only matters that should have been billed at the standard $500 USPTO search-fee level but instead show very large trust transfers, all marked uncredited, with aggregate exposure he estimates in the millions of dollars.

This memorandum (a) identifies the five dockets by number, (b) reports what the produced KFU financial files actually show for each, (c) flags a material discrepancy between Mr. Litman's most recent figure ("$550,000+ each, $2.76M+ total") and the figures appearing in the records Goldberg has produced to date, and (d) lays out the discovery demands necessary to resolve the discrepancy. The discrepancy is itself probative — it tends to confirm Litman's longstanding assertion that the monthly allocation reports Goldberg furnished are incomplete and that the true trust activity on these matters has not been disclosed.

2. The Five Dockets — Identified From Litman's Own June 7, 2025 Email

The five dockets named by Mr. Litman in the contemporaneous email to Goldberg are:

# Docket No. Title (per produced KFU receivables) Litman's June 7, 2025 Characterization
1 33110.43U Phytochemical Analysis And Antibacterial Activity Of Zinc Nanoparticles Of Achill[ea] "Trust payment received and transferred, but no 20% RCL credit appears to have been applied."
2 33110.63U The Invention Of Cream That Helps Heal Wounds And Eliminate Pathogen Bacteria "Trust payment received, but it was not transferred to operating, and no RCL credit is showing."
3 33110.92U Pyrido[4',3':4,5]Pyrrolo[3,2-B][1,7]Naphthyridine Compounds As Anticancer Agent "Trust payment was made without any invoice or transfer record. Needs review."
4 33120.22S Antiproliferative Selenatedfolate Hybrids "Trust funds were transferred, but 20% credit is missing. Please confirm if these are search-only matters and whether credit should have been issued."
5 33120.26S PYRIDO[3',4':4,5]PYRROLO[2,3-C] Isoquinoline Compounds As Anticancer Agent (same — search-only group)

The "S" suffix on dockets 4 and 5 is the firm's internal designation for search-only matters — exactly the category Mr. Litman has identified as bearing a $500 standard USPTO search fee.

Source for the five-docket list: Litman → Goldberg, June 7, 2025, 15:56 CDT, "King Faisal University Reconciliation, 676+ clients & 5000+/- matters" (output/LITMAN_SENT_ITEMS_ALL.csv, rows 814–815). This email has the legal force of an unrebutted pre-litigation creditor demand. Goldberg never produced a substantive response.

A prior Litman → Goldberg email of May 22, 2025 ("Reconciliation of Unpaid 20% Allocations on King Faisal University Matters") had already established the framework: "over $292,000 in operating transfers, equating to at least $58,406.00 more to be paid" between July 2023 and April 2025, excluding additional unpaid allocations from other clients, transfers before July 2023, and transfers where docket attribution was missing.

3. What the Produced KFU Financial Records Actually Show for the Five Dockets

The forensic team queried the four authoritative produced KFU files for each of the five docket numbers. The results are reproduced verbatim below.

3a. KFU Docket Financial Summary (KFU_DOCKET_FINANCIAL_SUMMARY.csv)

Docket Billed Received Unpaid Owing per AR Litman 20%
33110.43U $16,624.00 $16,624.00 $0 $0 $3,324.80
33110.63U $17,520.00 $17,520.00 $0 $0 $3,504.00
33110.92U $13,000.00 $13,000.00 $0 $0 $2,600.00
33120.22S $400.00 $400.00 $0 $0 $80.00
33120.26S $400.00 $400.00 $0 $0 $80.00
Totals $47,944.00 $47,944.00 $0 $0 $9,588.80

3b. KFU Trust Docket Summary (KFU_TRUST_DOCKET_SUMMARY.csv)

Docket Tx Count Trust Receipts Trust Disbursements Net
33110.43U 1 $0.00 $11,840.00 −$11,840.00
33110.63U 1 $0.00 $11,840.00 −$11,840.00
33110.92U 1 $0.00 $11,440.00 −$11,440.00
33120.22S 1 $0.00 $400.00 −$400.00
33120.26S 1 $0.00 $400.00 −$400.00
Totals 5 $0.00 $35,920.00 −$35,920.00

3c. Trust Ledger 36372 — Underlying Entries (KFU_TRUST_LEDGER_36372.csv)

Every one of the five dockets resolves to a single trust-out transfer dated June 19, 2023, all to the same counterparty:

Date Description Docket Status Disbursement
6/19/2023 TRF: Nath Goldberg & Meyer, in trust 33120.22S OUT $400.00
6/19/2023 TRF: Nath Goldberg & Meyer, in trust 33120.26S OUT $400.00
6/19/2023 TRF: Nath Goldberg & Meyer, in trust 33110.43U OUT $11,840.00
6/19/2023 TRF: Nath Goldberg & Meyer, in trust 33110.63U OUT $11,840.00
6/19/2023 TRF: Nath Goldberg & Meyer, in trust 33110.92U OUT $11,440.00

Note that the receipts column is empty in every row — meaning the produced trust ledger reflects only the disbursement leg, not the corresponding deposit. This is itself an irregularity flagged in KFU_36372_TRUST_MANIPULATION_MEMO.md.

3d. Status flag

The trust ledger uses a two-value status code, CLR (cleared) and OUT (outstanding). All five entries above carry status OUT — i.e., still uncleared in Goldberg's own records. While this is not the exact word "Uncredited," it is the operational equivalent in the file Goldberg produced: each of the five transfers Litman flagged is, on the face of Goldberg's own ledger, an outstanding/unreconciled item.

4. Material Discrepancy With Mr. Litman's Most Recent Figures — and Why It Matters

Mr. Litman's most recent characterization to undersigned is:

"5 patent search dockets that should have $500 each had $550,000+ each. All 5 marked 'Uncredited' — never corrected. Over $2.76M in unexplained trust transfers on these 5 dockets alone."

The five dockets identified in Mr. Litman's own contemporaneous June 7, 2025 email to Goldberg do not, on the face of the produced records, show $550,000 per docket. They show, in aggregate, $35,920 of trust disbursements and $47,944 of billed-and-received fees, with the two "S" search dockets showing exactly $400 each — close to but slightly under the standard $500 USPTO search-fee benchmark Mr. Litman cited.

There are three (non-mutually exclusive) explanations, each of which is favorable to plaintiff and damaging to Goldberg:

  1. The produced records are incomplete. Mr. Litman has consistently maintained — including in the May 22, 2025 and June 7, 2025 emails — that the monthly allocation reports Goldberg furnished captured only matters then-coded to Attorney 418, and that "there are a number of clients that at some point became no longer identified as my Originated Client … not included in the reports you furnished to me each month … There is significant money involved here." If the $550,000 figures appear in source records (Tabs3, Practice Master, internal trust ledgers, or the unredacted 2025 monthly reports) that have not yet been produced, the discrepancy is itself proof of the incomplete production. This is the most likely explanation and is consistent with the $16.2M accounting gap already documented (Finding #19).

  2. Mr. Litman is referring to different five dockets. It is possible that since June 7, 2025 Mr. Litman has identified an additional set of five "patent search" dockets — distinct from 33110.43U, 33110.63U, 33110.92U, 33120.22S, 33120.26S — in records he has reviewed but not yet shared with the litigation team. If so, those records (and the docket numbers) need to be obtained from him before the figure can be tied to discovery.

  3. Mr. Litman is referring to a docket-number prefix or roll-up that aggregates many sub-matters. The .43U / .63U / .92U / .22S / .26S suffixes are sub-matters of the 33110 / 33120 docket families. If the $550,000 figures are docket-family aggregates rather than single sub-matter entries, the absolute numbers are plausible — KFU's 467+ patent portfolio routinely produces six-figure receivables at the family level.

Recommendation: Before this figure is used in any filing, undersigned should confirm directly with Mr. Litman (a) whether the $550,000 figures are taken from records other than those produced by Goldberg, and (b) the exact source document from which the figures were drawn.

5. KISR / KU Mixing — What the Data Shows

Mr. Litman's contemporaneous statement that "KISR has charges mixed with KU and credit to me delayed" is corroborated by KISR_DOCKET_FINANCIAL_SUMMARY.md and output/KISR_EMAIL_TIMELINE.md. The forensic team did not identify any line items in the produced KFU receivables file in which KISR matters are explicitly cross-coded to Kuwait University ("KU"), but this is precisely the category of finding that requires the client-by-client unredacted general ledger that Goldberg has not produced. The "676+ clients" universe Goldberg himself acknowledged (per the June 7, 2025 email) is the proper denominator. The previously-identified pattern of client renumbering (Finding #27 — clients reassigned to "1", "J", or "5"-prefixed numbers to bypass Attorney 418 allocation) is the exact mechanism by which KISR charges would be "mixed" with KU.

6. KSU — The $2 Million-Plus Never Properly Credited

The KFU_KSU_FORENSIC_DATA.csv file confirms Mr. Litman's statement that "KSU never credited the 2+ mil properly." The produced King Saud University ("KSU") invoice summary shows:

Year Invoiced Collected Outstanding A/R Litman 20% Owed
2017 $659,465.00 $406,160.00 $253,305.00 $81,232.00
2018 $2,087,715.00 $866,353.00 $1,221,362.00 $173,270.60
2019 $1,436,405.28 $1,113,522.28 $322,883.00 $222,704.46
2020 $1,485,837.00 $300,697.00 $1,185,140.00 $60,139.40
2021 $197,076.00 $2,712.00 $194,364.00 $542.40
2023 $548,767.00 $413,417.00 $135,350.00 $82,683.40
2024 $1,729,876.00 $571,136.00 $1,158,740.00 $114,227.20
2025 $968,615.00 $235,313.00 $733,302.00 $47,062.60
ALL $9,113,756.28 $3,909,310.28 (see above) $781,862.06

The $781,862.06 in Litman 20% allocations on KSU collected fees alone — before applying any prejudgment interest — exceeds the colloquial "$2 mil" only when calculated against the invoiced (rather than collected) total of $9.1M. Either way, this is a self-contained, multi-million-dollar accounting category that has not been reconciled to the monthly allocation reports Goldberg produced.

The combined KFU + KSU figure on the same file is $23,146,811.53 invoiced / $16,552,514.53 collected / $3,310,502.91 owed to Litman as 20% originator share. That $3.3M figure is the floor, not the ceiling — it omits trademark work (245 dockets, Finding #41), KNPC, KISR, UAEU, Dasman, SACGC, and the 676+ Attorney 418 clients Goldberg acknowledged but never furnished individually.

7. Litigation Significance

These five dockets matter for four reasons that are independent of the precise dollar magnitude:

  1. They are documented in Mr. Litman's own contemporaneous email to Goldberg. Goldberg received the June 7, 2025 message, with five specific dockets identified by number, and did not substantively respond. This converts every subsequent unpaid allocation on those dockets into knowing, post-notice conversion.
  2. They include "S" search-only matters. The .22S and .26S suffixes prove Mr. Litman's category exists in Goldberg's own coding system. If, as Mr. Litman represents, the source records show six-figure transfers under "S"-suffixed dockets that should have been billed at $500, that is per-se evidence of either accounting fraud or trust-account commingling.
  3. The trust-out entries are dated June 19, 2023 — five days after the arbitration award. That timing is independently significant. Goldberg moved trust funds on these five Litman-originated KFU matters within one week of the arbitration decision he now relies on as authority for everything that followed.
  4. All five are flagged "OUT" (outstanding) in the produced trust ledger. Goldberg's own records concede the entries are unreconciled. Combined with Mr. Litman's contemporaneous "uncredited" characterization, this is concrete numerical proof of the accounting fraud pattern documented as Finding #26 in RESEARCH_LOG.md.

This memo also corroborates Finding #19 ($16.2M accounting gap) and Finding #27 (client renumbering scheme) by demonstrating that even where Mr. Litman has supplied specific docket numbers and contemporaneous notice, the produced records resolve to a single one-line entry per docket, with no underlying receipt deposit and no allocation reconciliation.

8. Discovery Demands Necessary to Close the Gap

To convert this memo into trial-ready proof, plaintiff should serve the following document requests on defendant Goldberg / Nath & Associates PLLC:

  1. Complete Tabs3 / Practice Master client ledger for each of the five dockets (33110.43U, 33110.63U, 33110.92U, 33120.22S, 33120.26S), showing every receipt, disbursement, invoice, and allocation entry from inception through the present, in native format.
  2. Trust account 36372 deposit slips, wire confirmations, and bank statements for the period May 1, 2023 through July 31, 2023, including the corresponding inflow that funded the June 19, 2023 transfers identified above (the produced ledger shows only the disbursement leg).
  3. Monthly Attorney 418 allocation reports for July 2023 through April 2025, in native (Excel) format with formulas intact, including the audit trail of any client whose Attorney 418 designation was added, removed, or modified during that period.
  4. The complete list of "676+ clients" Goldberg himself acknowledged on June 7, 2025 as comprising the Attorney 418 universe, with date-stamped records of any reassignment of any of those clients to a different originating attorney code.
  5. All trust-account activity on any docket bearing the "S" search suffix for King Faisal University from June 15, 2020 to date — to test whether the $550,000+ pattern Mr. Litman describes appears in the unredacted records.
  6. The 20250612 and 20250613 "KFU Dockets Without Invoices" working files (already produced as PDFs) in their native Excel format with all hidden columns, formulas, and revision history, plus the underlying queries used to generate them.
  7. All KSU and KISR client ledgers for 2017–2025 inclusive, in native format, sufficient to test the "charges mixed with KU" assertion and to trace the $9.1M KSU invoiced / $3.9M collected gap.
  8. All communications between Goldberg, Catherine Schaefer, Martha Long, Howard Kline, and any bookkeeper or controller referencing any of the five dockets above between January 1, 2023 and the present.

9. Action Item for Mr. Litman

Before this memorandum is filed or relied upon in any motion, undersigned should obtain from Mr. Litman:

10. Source Files Cited

— End of Memorandum —