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

Four Categories Of Name Use

FOUR CATEGORIES OF NAME USE

A Unified Framework for Section 51 Liability

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 Source: Direction from Richard C. Litman (Plaintiff)


Overview

Richard Litman's name was commercially exploited across four distinct categories of publication, each constituting separate acts under NY Civil Rights Law Section 51. The KNPC patent portfolio provides the control proof -- demonstrating that Goldberg exercised knowing, conscious choice over whose name appeared on every document.

The Four Categories at a Glance

# Category Acts Key Evidence Exhibit
1 USPTO Issued Patents & Filings 905 patents + 206+ outgoing docs Patent front pages (Line 74), Filing Receipts, NOAs, Office Actions Existing (MECHANISM_OF_LIABILITY_MEMO.md)
2 Client-Facing Publications 24,526+ emails Martha Long forwarding USPTO docs to clients; "27 years" solicitations CLIENT_FACING_PUBLICATION_EXHIBIT.md
3 Trademark Practice Name Use 1,813+ trademark emails Howard Kline / Nicola Pizza; outside counsel contacting Litman by name TRADEMARK_NAME_USE_EXHIBIT.md
4 Foreseeable Republication 9,050+ database entries Google Patents, Espacenet, Justia, FPO, Lens.org indexing FORESEEABLE_REPUBLICATION_MEMO.md

Control Proof: KNPC_TRANSITION_CONTROL_EXHIBIT.md

Combined Publication Count

Category Estimated Acts SOL Period
Category 1: USPTO Publications ~1,111 6/15/2020 - present
Category 2: Client-Facing Publications ~24,526 6/15/2020 - present
Category 3: Trademark Publications ~1,813 6/15/2020 - 10/13/2025
Category 4: Foreseeable Republication ~9,050 6/15/2020 - present (ongoing)
TOTAL ~36,500+

The Control Proof: KNPC

Before analyzing each category, the threshold question is: Did Goldberg cause these publications? His Answer (Doc #65, Para. 33) denies it.

The KNPC portfolio destroys that denial:

Fact Evidence
All 3 KNPC patents list Goldberg on Line 74 USPTO patent front pages (OCR-verified)
All KNPC matters billed under "Richard Litman (RL)" RL_Client_List.csv (NGM Soluno export, 6/16/2025)
Same Customer Number (CN-37833) used for KNPC and 905 Litman patents IFW JSON data
Goldberg personally directed KNPC POA filing 5 days post-arbitration Email C2051472_ND0000247121 (6/19/2023)
Litman explicitly objected to name use the next month Sent item ND263307 (7/18/2023) -- "we need to ensure there is no likelihood of confusion resulting from NGM's use of my name"
KNPC filing continued 2 days after lawsuit Application 19/277,913 filed 7/23/2025

The inference: If Goldberg could put his own name on KNPC patents while billing those same matters under Litman's name, he equally had the power to keep Litman's name on 905 other patents. The choice was deliberate each time. Each of those designations was a knowing, controlled act.


Category 1: USPTO Issued Patents and Filings

Already Documented

This is the core "deck of cards" theory, extensively documented in existing materials: - MECHANISM_OF_LIABILITY_MEMO.md -- the POA -> Filing Receipt -> Office Action -> NOA -> Line 74 chain - MISAPPROPRIATION_ELEMENTS_PROOF.md -- elements of Section 51 mapped to patent evidence - IFW_HIDDEN_ATTRIBUTION_MEMO.md -- hidden attribution patents expanding the count

Key Numbers

Sub-Category Count
Issued patents with Litman on Line 74 905
Outgoing USPTO documents (21 mapped applications) 206
POAs signed by Goldberg personally 16 (Reg. 44126)
PTOL-85B forms (Lafave) 18
Post-7/21/2024 patents 13 (+2 hidden attribution)
Post-6/15/2025 patents Pending (dataset ends 1/14/2025)

Goldberg's Admission

Answer (Doc #65, Para. 32): "Defendant admits only that Plaintiff's name appeared on the front page of patents issued to Plaintiff's originated clients after June 15, 2020."


Category 2: Client-Facing Publications

The Theory

When Martha Long emailed clients attaching USPTO documents that listed "Richard C. Litman" as attorney, each email was a separate client-facing publication of Litman's name for commercial purposes. This is distinct from the USPTO filing itself -- it is the delivery of that filing into the client's inbox as part of a paid legal services relationship.

Scale

Metric Count
Martha Long emails with USPTO document attachments 24,526
Emails mentioning kfu@4patent.com (any field) 19,701
Mapped post-7/21/2024 KFU emails (9 dockets) 113
"27 years" solicitation emails to prospective clients 4+ confirmed

Note: The 24,526 and 19,701 figures measure different populations and should not be summed or conflated. 24,526 is the subset of Martha Long-authored (sender) emails carrying USPTO document attachments. 19,701 is an any-field (From/To/CC) count of records mentioning kfu@4patent.com across the ND0001+ND0002 metadata.

Representative Examples

Client document forwarding (post-7/21/2024): - 7/3/2025: Issue Notification for KFU -- Docket 33140.97YY - 6/24/2025: Notice of Allowance for KFU -- Docket 33190.19U - 5/9/2025: Office Action Notification for KFU -- Docket 33190.19U - 12/12/2024: Patent Application Filed for KFU -- Docket 33190.19U

Solicitation emails using Litman's name: - 6/15/2023: "I have worked with Richard Litman for the past 27 years and would be delighted to assist you" -- to Mohammad Al-Harbi (Kuwait) - 7/10/2023: Same template -- to Mondher Lateri - 4/4/2023: "I have worked with him for the past 27 years" -- to Mr. Won (U of Michigan)

Al-Harbi specifically sought out the firm because of Litman's name: "I would like to know how much a consultation with the attorney Mr. Richard C. Litman costs?"

Other Middle East Clients Receiving These Emails

Why This Matters

Each email is arguably a more commercially significant publication than the USPTO filing because: - It is delivered directly to the fee-paying client - It reinforces the impression that Litman is their attorney - The client relies on it when deciding to continue engaging the firm - Martha acted at Goldberg's direction (Email Evidence Memo, Exhibits B-1, B-2, B-4)

Full exhibit: output/CLIENT_FACING_PUBLICATION_EXHIBIT.md


Category 3: Trademark Practice Name Use

The Theory

Litman's name was exploited across an entirely separate practice area -- trademarks. Howard Kline managed NGM's trademark portfolio, sending 2,678 emails (91% CC'ing Litman) while clients and outside counsel contacted Litman by name for trademark work.

The Nicola Pizza Case Study

Date Event Significance
12/13/2023 Ciro Poppiti (Lewis Brisbois) emails rlitman@nathlaw.com for trademark work Outside counsel seeks out Litman by name
12/14/2023 Litman forwards to Kline Delegation pattern
1/16/2024 Joint call: Litman, Kline, Poppiti Litman still face of firm
2-3/2024 Kline manages portfolio review, TASTE OF THE FIRST STATE filing All CC Litman
4/9/2024 Litman tells Goldberg: "The relationship is growing" Business development value acknowledged
4/18/2024 Litman: "my relationship goes back decades" Client origination confirmed
12/2024-1/2025 Trust ledger: 5 trademark payments, all under "RL" Active commercial use
7/29/2025 USPTO TM receipt sent to Litman's email (auto-reply) Name still on filings post-departure

Financial Evidence

All 9 Nicola Pizza trademark dockets billed under "RL" (Richard Litman): - 8 registered marks + 1 new application (TASTE OF THE 1ST STATE, Serial No. 98499741) - $9,520+ in trust receipts, most recent December 2024/January 2025

Other Trademark Clients

Why This Matters

Full exhibit: output/TRADEMARK_NAME_USE_EXHIBIT.md


Category 4: Foreseeable Republication

The Theory

When Goldberg caused Litman's name to appear on USPTO patent front pages, it was foreseeable that third-party databases would automatically republish this information. Each such republication is an additional publication attributable to Goldberg's original act.

Third-Party Databases (10+ Confirmed)

Google Patents, Espacenet, Justia Patents, Free Patents Online, Lens.org, PatSnap, Derwent Innovation, Innography, USPTO Patent Center, USPTO Full-Text DB

The "Different Search, Different Day" Insight

Per Richard Litman: "Each search for my name shows blurbs on different patents on different days... each could be publication within SOL if each search results in different data... likely with more patents issuing with my name."

As new patents issue post-7/21/2024, new database entries are created. Each Google search for "Richard Litman" on a different day may show different patents -- each a different publication experience.

Post-7/21/2024 Multiplier

13 patents issued after 7/21/2024 x 10 databases = 130 additional third-party publications in the strongest SOL period alone.

905 total patents x 10 databases = 9,050 additional third-party publications over the full SOL period.

Caution: "Turning Point Use"

Richard Litman wisely notes: "We don't want to dilute use on issued patents but this is the turning point use." The foreseeable republication theory should be presented as supplemental -- it adds to the core patent evidence, it does not replace it.

Full memo: output/FORESEEABLE_REPUBLICATION_MEMO.md


Middle East Client Origination: The Foundation

All four categories rest on one foundational fact: Litman originated all Middle East clients.

Evidence of Origination

Source Evidence
Goldberg's own Answer (Doc #65, Paras. 32, 72) "Plaintiff's originated clients" -- binding party admission
NGM billing system "Responsible Lawyer 418 (Richard Litman)" on all ME matters
Goldberg's own email (6/2/2025) "a list of all clients in Soluno listing you as the Responsible Attorney, Lead Attorney, and for whom you are receiving Origination Credit"
"The Pad" (1/2024) Goldberg's tracking system: "When you complete work on any matter where Richard Litman is the originating attorney"
Kuwait University (9/2020) Called NGM "Litman's office"
KSU (5/2025) Requested letter confirming NGM "acquired Litman Law Offices"
Litman emails (6/2023-1/2025) "please make sure I am given origination credit for this" (multiple instances)
Financial data 76-79% of firm revenue from Litman-originated clients; from April 2024 onward, 100% of collections credited to Litman

Complete Middle East Client List (18+ Institutions)

King Faisal University, King Saud University, KNPC, UAEU, Kuwait University, KISR, Dasman Diabetes Institute, Sabah Al-Ahmad Center, Qatar Foundation, Arabian Gulf University, King Abdulaziz University, IMSIU, University of Sharjah, University of Tabuk, King Faisal Hospital, Saudi Advanced, Kuwait Innovation Center, Taif University -- plus dozens of individual Middle Eastern inventors.


Damages Implications

Before This Framework

Acts Theory
905 issued patents One act per patent
~1,111 Deck of cards (USPTO documents)

After This Framework

Category Acts Value Driver
1. USPTO Publications ~1,111 Core -- government records
2. Client-Facing Publications ~24,526 Commercial -- fee-generating
3. Trademark Publications ~1,813 Extends to second practice area
4. Foreseeable Republication ~9,050 Ongoing -- digital permanence
TOTAL ~36,500+

At even modest per-act damages, this multiplier dramatically increases the case value. And the post-7/21/2024 acts (strongest for SOL) include contributions from all four categories.


For BOP Response (Due ~3/25/2026)

  1. Include all four categories in the BOP response framework
  2. Reference specific exhibits for each category
  3. Note the KNPC control proof in response to any "causation" challenges

For Discovery (BOPs Due 4/2/2026)

  1. Demand all emails from Martha Long to clients attaching USPTO documents (Category 2)
  2. Demand all Kline trademark correspondence (Category 3)
  3. Demand "The Pad" spreadsheet and all origination credit reports

For Depositions (Complete by 6/2/2026)

  1. Goldberg: KNPC control proof -- why his name on KNPC but Litman's on 905 others?
  2. Kline: Why 91% CC rate? Who directed it? Whose "clients" were they?
  3. Martha Long: Who directed her solicitation emails? Did she know Litman had departed?

For Evidence Collection (Ongoing)

  1. Capture Google search screenshots on 3 different dates (Category 4)
  2. Capture Google Patents, Justia, Espacenet screenshots for 5 post-7/21/2024 patents
  3. Save all to evidence/republication/ with timestamps

Document Index

Document Purpose
output/FOUR_CATEGORIES_OF_NAME_USE.md This memo -- unified framework
output/KNPC_TRANSITION_CONTROL_EXHIBIT.md Control proof -- Goldberg chose whose name appeared
output/CLIENT_FACING_PUBLICATION_EXHIBIT.md Category 2 -- Martha's emails as publications
output/TRADEMARK_NAME_USE_EXHIBIT.md Category 3 -- Kline/Nicola Pizza trademark name use
output/FORESEEABLE_REPUBLICATION_MEMO.md Category 4 -- third-party database republication
output/MECHANISM_OF_LIABILITY_MEMO.md Category 1 -- existing USPTO publication chain
output/MISAPPROPRIATION_ELEMENTS_PROOF.md Legal elements framework
output/ADMISSIONS_INVENTORY.md Goldberg's admissions including "originated clients"
output/KFU_KSU_FORENSIC_FINANCIAL_MAP.md Financial dependency (76-79% Litman-originated)