Prepared: March 25, 2026 Case: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 (NY Sup. Ct., Kings County) Relevance: Count V -- NY Civil Rights Law Sections 50-51
When Goldberg caused Litman's name to appear on USPTO patent front pages, it was foreseeable that third-party patent databases would automatically republish this information. Each such republication -- on Google Patents, Espacenet, Justia Patents, Free Patents Online, Lens.org, and others -- constitutes an additional "publication" of Litman's name for commercial purposes. As new patents issued (especially the 13 post-7/21/2024 patents), new database entries were created, generating ongoing, foreseeable downstream publications attributable to Goldberg's original acts.
This theory is supplemental to (not a replacement for) the existing "deck of cards" theory. The original USPTO publications remain the primary acts; foreseeable republication adds a multiplier.
Under New York tort law, a tortfeasor is liable for foreseeable consequences of their wrongful act. When Goldberg filed POAs and caused Litman's name to appear on patent front pages, the following consequences were entirely foreseeable:
The existing case materials argue that each USPTO document is a "new government document, not a republication" to defeat the Nussenzweig v. diCorcia first-publication SOL defense. This is compatible with the foreseeable republication theory:
The two theories are additive. The existing argument says "these are not republications of each other" (correct -- each USPTO document is distinct). The new argument says "the third-party indexing of each USPTO document is a foreseeable republication of that specific document" (also correct -- and creates additional publications).
Every patent issued by the USPTO is automatically ingested by multiple third-party databases. Each displays the attorney of record -- "Richard C. Litman" -- to anyone who searches.
| Database | URL | Coverage | Free? | Displays Attorney? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Google Patents | patents.google.com | All USPTO patents | Yes | Yes -- "Representative" field |
| Espacenet | worldwide.espacenet.com | All USPTO + worldwide | Yes | Yes -- bibliographic data |
| Justia Patents | patents.justia.com | All US patents | Yes | Yes -- "Attorney, Agent or Firm" field |
| Free Patents Online | freepatentsonline.com | All US patents | Yes | Yes -- full bibliographic data |
| Lens.org | lens.org | 150M+ patent records | Yes | Yes -- attorney/agent fields |
| PatSnap | patsnap.com | All major patent offices | Commercial | Yes |
| Derwent Innovation | clarivate.com | 170M+ patent records | Commercial | Yes |
| Innography | innography.com | All major patent offices | Commercial | Yes |
| USPTO Patent Center | patentcenter.uspto.gov | All US applications | Yes | Yes -- attorney of record |
| USPTO Full-Text DB | patft.uspto.gov | All US patents | Yes | Yes -- bibliographic data |
Each of the 905 Litman-attributed patents appears in all of these databases.
Each of these patents generated new third-party database entries within the strongest SOL period:
| # | Issue Date | Patent No. | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2024-07-23 | 12,043,608 | |
| 2 | 2024-07-23 | 12,043,609 | |
| 3 | 2024-07-30 | 12,049,459 | |
| 4 | 2024-08-06 | 12,054,460 | |
| 5 | 2024-08-06 | 12,054,464 | |
| 6 | 2024-08-13 | 12,062,780 | |
| 7 | 2024-08-20 | 12,065,424 | |
| 8 | 2024-08-27 | 12,071,437 | |
| 9 | 2024-10-08 | D1,046,141 | Design patent |
| 10 | 2024-10-15 | 12,114,620 | KISR assignee |
| 11 | 2024-10-15 | 12,116,333 | |
| 12 | 2024-12-03 | 12,157,086 | KNPC (Goldberg Line 74) |
| 13 | 2025-01-14 | 12,194,434 | Last in dataset |
Additional post-SOL patents discovered via IFW: US 12,227,748 and US 12,303,254 (hidden attribution patents with PTOL-85B as late as April 16, 2025).
For the 13 post-7/21/2024 patents alone:
| Databases | x Patents | = Third-Party Publications |
|---|---|---|
| 10 databases | x 13 patents | = 130 additional publications |
For all 905 patents:
| Databases | x Patents | = Third-Party Publications |
|---|---|---|
| 10 databases | x 905 patents | = 9,050 additional publications |
Uncle Richard's key insight: Each search for his name shows different results on different days, and each such search result is arguably a separate publication.
Recommended evidence collection:
Google search screenshots -- Search "Richard C. Litman attorney" or "Richard C. Litman patent" on multiple dates. Screenshot the results showing different patents highlighted on different days.
Google Patents screenshots -- Search "Richard C. Litman" on patents.google.com. Each result page showing a patent with Litman's name is a publication.
Espacenet screenshots -- Search inventor or attorney fields. Document the display of Litman's name.
Justia Patents screenshots -- Search justia.com/patents for Litman. Each patent page displaying "Attorney, Agent or Firm: Richard C. Litman" is a separate publication.
Date-stamped captures -- Use Wayback Machine, browser screenshots with visible date/time, or screen recording to establish that searches on different dates yield different results.
Per the case theory, acts after 7/21/2024 are the strongest for SOL arguments. Third-party database republication of post-7/21/2024 patents has special value because:
As a registered patent attorney, Goldberg would have known: - Google Patents indexes all USPTO data (industry common knowledge) - Patent databases are the primary way clients and the public discover patent attorneys - Placing Litman's name on patent front pages would propagate to all major databases - This propagation would continue for the life of each patent (20+ years)
Goldberg maintained Litman's profile on nathlaw.com through at least June 21, 2025 -- showing he understood the commercial value of Litman's online presence. If Goldberg was willing to keep Litman's name on the firm website to attract business, it is foreseeable that he understood the same name on patent databases would have the same commercial effect.
The foreseeable republication theory complements the existing deck of cards theory:
| Theory | Primary Publications | Downstream Publications | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deck of Cards (existing) | 905 patents + 206 outgoing docs | -- | ~1,111 |
| Client-Facing (new, Category 2) | -- | 24,526+ Martha emails | ~24,526 |
| Trademark (new, Category 3) | 1,813 trademark emails | -- | ~1,813 |
| Foreseeable Republication (new, Category 4) | -- | 9,050+ database entries | ~9,050 |
| Combined | ~36,500+ |
This transforms the damages calculation from ~1,000 discrete acts to potentially tens of thousands of separately actionable publications.
Novel theory -- No existing case law directly applying foreseeable republication to Section 51 patent attorney name-use was identified. This theory should be researched for case support.
Dilution risk -- Uncle Richard correctly notes "We don't want to dilute use on issued patents." The foreseeable republication theory should be presented as the "turning point" multiplier -- additive to the core patent evidence, not a substitute for it.
Documentation burden -- To assert this theory, screenshots must be captured from multiple databases on multiple dates showing Litman's name. This is labor-intensive but straightforward.
Standing question -- Whether Litman has standing to claim Section 51 damages for third-party database entries (where the database operator, not Goldberg, hosts the content) depends on the foreseeability argument. The databases automatically ingest USPTO data; Goldberg caused the USPTO data to exist.
Capture Google search screenshots -- Search "Richard C. Litman" and "Richard C. Litman patent attorney" on Google. Screenshot results showing patent listings. Do this on 3 different dates to show results change.
Capture Google Patents screenshots -- Go to patents.google.com, search for 3-4 specific post-7/21/2024 patents by number. Screenshot each showing Litman's name in the "Representative" field.
Capture Justia Patents screenshots -- Go to patents.justia.com, search for the same patents. Screenshot each showing "Attorney, Agent or Firm: Richard C. Litman."
Save all screenshots with dates visible to evidence/republication/ directory.
Research case law -- Search for NY Section 51 cases addressing foreseeable republication, database indexing, or ongoing digital publication.
Expert testimony -- Consider retaining a patent information systems expert who can testify that USPTO-to-database propagation is automatic, foreseeable, and universal.
| Document | Location |
|---|---|
| 905-patent backbone dataset | uspto_richard_litman_package_full/uspto_richard_litman/richard_litman_attorney_issued_patents_since_2020-06-15.csv |
| 12 post-7/21/2024 overlap patents | likely_targets_litman_and_goldberg_post_2024-07-21.csv |
| Hidden attribution patents | output/IFW_HIDDEN_ATTRIBUTION_MEMO.md |
| Mechanism of Liability Memo | output/MECHANISM_OF_LIABILITY_MEMO.md |
| Misappropriation Elements Proof | output/MISAPPROPRIATION_ELEMENTS_PROOF.md |
| Website evidence (nathlaw.com) | evidence/website/nathlaw_richard_litman_profile_2025-06-21.png |