Purpose. Controlled vocabulary for the platform, exhibit captions, memos, and any client-facing material. Use the preferred terms; avoid the banned terms. Where two terms are interchangeable, use the one tied to the statutory or strategic frame we have committed to.
Scope. Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 (NY Sup. Ct., Kings County) — surviving Count V (NY Civ Rights L §§ 50-51 misappropriation of name) plus parallel AAA payout enforcement.
Mode. Two enforcement modes wired into the platform via
glossary_check.js: - Strict — banned terms in client-facing fields are rejected at save. - Advisory — banned terms produce a warning but allow save.
| Topic | Section |
|---|---|
| Statutory wording (§ 50, § 51) | (a) |
| Three-element claim framing | (b) |
| Damages-theory vocabulary | (c) |
| Time-window labels (SOL, pre/post-arbitration) | (d) |
| Banned words / framing traps | (e) |
| Client / entity / personnel naming | (f) |
| Document and exhibit nomenclature | (g) |
Preferred for the predicate § 51 act. The statute says "use" — say "use." "Misappropriation of name" is acceptable as a cause-of-action label (the tort name) but in the predicate sentence, write use: "Defendants used Plaintiff's name…" Avoid: "appropriation" alone (under-specifies the act), "stole" (rhetorical), "infringed" (wrong body of law).
Preferred. § 51 contains both prongs disjunctively. Where the use serves either, plead and prove both — they are independently sufficient. Anti-pattern: Pleading only "for trade" when "for advertising" is also available (e.g., NGM website, masthead, kfu@4patent.com routing) — leaves a needless argument on the table.
Preferred for the NY-nexus showing. We have NY clients, NY mailings into and out of NY, NY office presence, and NYSCEF docket evidence. Always cite the NY connection explicitly in the use sentence. Avoid: Letting opposing counsel turn this into a contested element by silence.
Preferred. § 51 requires written consent. Verbal acquiescence, pattern of dealing, or implied consent does not satisfy. Plead in the negative ("Plaintiff did not give written consent…") and tie to the absence of any signed consent in the record. Anti-pattern: "without consent" (drops the written qualifier — invites an oral-consent / course-of-dealing defense).
Preferred for the punitive enhancement under § 51. Tied to willfulness anchors: - LITMAN209485 (Goldberg → KFU 12/20/2023, "respond to our attorney's questions") - LITMAN250428 + LITMAN250429 (Goldberg → KSU 8/26/2024, "our attorney") - LITMAN267104 (Goldberg → UAEU 6/11/2024, "one of our attorneys") - The PTOL-85B per-patent name choice (James Lafave typed Litman on some, Goldberg on others — proves election, not default).
Preferred when foreclosing the defense argument that disability/retirement extinguishes § 51 standing. § 50 explicitly limits the right to living persons; Plaintiff is alive and the disability does not change that. Avoid: Letting "termination" or "disability" framing imply death-of-claim.
Preferred verbatim from § 51. We are litigating name; do not under-plead by limiting to "name" if the case file also contains likeness uses (NGM website headshots, exhibit photos in client decks).
We have committed to a three-element pleading: (1) identifiable use, (2) commercial purpose, (3) without consent. All exhibits should be captioned to one or more of these elements.
The document, email, page, or filing identifies Plaintiff by name (or sufficient surrounding context to identify him). Patent front pages, "/Richard C. Litman/" signature blocks, the kfu@4patent.com address-line, the NGM website's "Richard C. Litman, Attorney" page — all identifiable uses.
Patent prosecution is a paid legal service. Client correspondence is the carrier of that service. Both are "for the purposes of trade." The website page advertises the firm's services. The trademark filings are filed as commercial registrations. Note: The defense will argue "professional speech is not commercial." We rebut: § 51 commercial purpose is broader than First Amendment commercial-speech doctrine; the use was undertaken to obtain or retain client revenue.
Defense burden, not Plaintiff's. We affirmatively show absence of any signed writing by which Plaintiff authorized post-6/15/2020 use of his name on USPTO filings, NGM client communications, the 4patent.com domain aliases, or the website.
Preferred for the multiplier framing. Each USPTO outgoing document and each client-facing email bearing Litman's name is a separate § 51 act. With 23,508 catalogued post-arbitration commercial uses across the 6 ME clients alone, the multiplier is enormous. Avoid: "per patent" (collapses thousands of separate acts into hundreds), "per matter" (same defect).
Preferred (uncle's term — keep it). Captures the trust-transfer mechanism: Plaintiff built personal client trust over 30+ years; NGM traded on that trust to retain clients and revenue post-substitution. The commercial value of the name is the commercial value of the imprimatur. Substitutes when "imprimatur" feels too formal: "personal client trust," "professional good-will associated with Plaintiff's name."
Preferred for the volume framing. Lead with pattern, not instance. Repetition is the mechanism by which the imprimatur is sustained. Avoid: "isolated," "occasional," "single instance" — all of which are factually wrong and rhetorically destructive.
Preferred statutory measure under § 51. Anchored in:
- $15,000 – $20,000 per patent fee baseline (uncle's rule, 4/16/2026 fee baseline memo)
- KISR flat-fee schedule (Bates C2051472_ND0000271385)
- Martha Long quoted pricing in the 276K-email corpus
- NGM-produced revenue figures ($2,108,387 / $2,412,428)
Note: "Commercial value of name" is distinct from "lost wages" or "lost partnership distribution" — those are payout-enforcement measures (Track 1).
Preferred for the SOL framing. Each new use restarts the clock for that use. Pre-SOL uses are time-barred only as standalone claims; the post-SOL uses are independently actionable, and the pre-SOL pattern is admissible to show value/notice/course. Avoid: "started in 2017 and continued" framed as one ongoing wrong (invites single-publication-rule defense).
Preferred internal label for the four "our attorney" Goldberg emails (KFU, KSU ×2, UAEU). These are the highest-leverage exhibits for the punitive enhancement. Open every binder with the relevant anchor.
Preferred internal shorthand: - Track 1 = practice payout enforcement (AAA award, NGM accounting, trust ledgers, banking, $18,848 wire reconciliation, Eagle/BoA spoliation, COBRA consequentials). - Track 2 = §§ 50-51 name-use damages (the surviving Count V). Note: Internal only. In filings, use "Plaintiff's contract / arbitration enforcement claims" and "Plaintiff's NY Civil Rights Law § 51 claim" respectively.
Preferred for the per-matter floor when NGM has failed to produce accounting records. Established 4/16/2026 by Plaintiff. Additive to the $424K–$928K NGM-produced anchor; does not displace it.
Preferred rule for accounts-receivable analysis. AR does not legitimately have an "expiration." A receivable is owed until (a) paid, (b) formally written off (which requires a journal entry, an accounting policy, and disclosure), or (c) legally extinguished. Any internal NGM artifact tagging an outstanding AR row "expiring" / "expired" without a corresponding write-off journal entry is, by definition, silently removing it from tracking — the bookkeeping equivalent of a write-off without disclosure. Use case: the 96 KSU dockets present in the Oct 2025 Trust Transfer Journal (tagged "expired J. Goldberg F[iles]") that vanished from the Q4 2025 Gould Receivables-by-Client report. See Litman AR Expiring Tag Analysis, 4/27/2026 (in this bundle). Sits as the third concealment channel alongside formal write-offs and trust-side "expired" sweeps. Avoid: "aged out," "stale receivable," "uncollectible" (these all imply the receivable did something on its own, when in fact the firm took an act). Frame the act, not the aging.
Preferred for the unpaid 20% royalty share NGM owes Plaintiff. Use also: "unpaid 20% share," "unpaid Practice royalty share." Avoid: "back pay," "back wages," "unpaid wages." Wage framing concedes employee posture; the arbitrator characterized the 20% as a royalty ("payment for the privilege of servicing the lucrative client base"). Anchor: $2,108,387 (22mo) / $2,412,428 (24mo) — NGM's own PAR math.
Two damages theories pled in the alternative: - Disgorgement — NGM's full revenue attributable to patents/matters bearing Plaintiff's name. 5-tier framework figure: $13.1M. - Fair-market valuation — what NGM would have paid an arms-length licensee for the use. Anchored in the per-patent fee baseline. Always state which one a given binder/exhibit is arguing. Use "and/or in the alternative" when pleading both.
Use these as fixed labels. Don't paraphrase. Two boundary dates control: - 6/15/2020 — judge-set start date for the "post-termination" period of use. This is the relevant scope of conduct, set by the court. (Not an SOL boundary.) - 7/21/2024 — actual statute-of-limitations cutoff under CPLR 215(3) (1-year SOL for § 51 actions; complaint filed ~7/21/2025). Uses after this date are independently actionable; uses before this date but within the post-termination window are admissible for willfulness, course, notice, and value — but not as standalone § 51 claims.
| Label | Date range | Evidentiary use |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-Termination Period | before 6/15/2020 | Background only. Probative of commercial value of name (Purpose A), engagement history, imprimatur foundation. Not post-termination conduct; not used to plead liability. |
| Post-Termination, Pre-SOL Window | 6/15/2020 – 7/21/2024 | Post-termination uses but past 1-year SOL when complaint filed. Goes to willfulness, course of conduct, notice, value-of-name, repetition pattern. Not standalone liability. |
| Post-SOL / Within-SOL Window | after 7/21/2024 | Each use is independently actionable on its own 1-year SOL. This is the actionable-claims window. |
| Pre-arbitration sub-window | 6/15/2020 – 6/14/2023 | Subset of post-termination, pre-SOL — early-period conduct establishing pattern. |
| Post-arbitration sub-window | 6/14/2023 – 7/18/2025 | Subset that begins under arbitration-award notice — strongest willfulness inferences pre-SOL; strongest direct-liability posture post-SOL. |
| Late period | after 6/15/2025 | "Especially problematic" per Plaintiff; near-term spoliation overlay. Subset of within-SOL window. |
| Disability period | from Plaintiff's disability onset forward | Affects consent / capacity argument. Do not call this "termination period" (Plaintiff went on disability). |
Preferred when referring to the period after Plaintiff went on disability. Avoid: "post-termination," "after Plaintiff was let go," "after Plaintiff left the firm" — these all imply (a) a termination that did not occur, and (b) consent or acquiescence to the substitution.
| Banned | Why | Use instead |
|---|---|---|
| "termination" | Plaintiff was not terminated; he went on private disability. | "post-disability period," "during the disability period" |
| "fraud" / "accounting fraud" | Different cause of action; cf. our standing rule that everything frames as commercial exploitation of identity, not accounting wrongdoing. | "unconsented commercial use," "commercial exploitation of name," "spoliation" (where the act is destruction of records) |
| "retainer" | Goldberg's mischaracterization of Plaintiff's status; Plaintiff held an equity / payout right, not a retainer. Repeating their word ratifies their frame. | "equity payout right," "partnership-distribution right," "AAA-awarded share" |
| "mistake" / "error" / "oversight" | Excuses Goldberg; the PTOL-85B per-patent choice + 16 POA Goldberg signatures prove deliberate election. | "election," "decision," "deliberate choice" |
| "occasional," "isolated," "one-off" | Factually wrong (we have 23,508+ uses) and rhetorically suicidal. | "systematic," "sustained," "patterned," "daily-drumbeat" (KFU) |
| "lost fees" alone | Undersells § 51 — the statute measures value-of-name, not lost-wages. | "commercial value of name," "fair-market value of the use," or pair the two: "Plaintiff's lost partnership distribution and the commercial value of the unconsented use." |
| "ongoing since 2017" | Invites SOL bar defense by foregrounding pre-cutoff conduct. | "the pattern documented in the actionable post-6/15/2020 window is consistent with conduct dating to 2017." |
| "Maria" | Transcription artifact; Plaintiff's phone autocorrected "Martha / my analysis" to "Maria analysis." There is no Maria. | "Martha Long" (NGM staff who sent the client correspondence) |
| "back pay" / "back wages" / "unpaid wages" (added 4/27/2026) | Wage framing concedes employee posture; arbitrator characterized the 20% as a royalty. | "deferred payment for the Practice," "unpaid 20% share," "unpaid Practice royalty share" |
| "the law firm sent…" | Anonymizes the actor. | Name the human actor where known: Goldberg, Martha Long, Valencia Gray, James Lafave. |
| "we believe" / "it appears" | Hedges undermine the record. | State the documented fact and cite the Bates / source. |
| Label | Full name | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| KFU | King Faisal University (Saudi Arabia) | Largest single client — 1,067 dockets / 781 issued or allowed |
| KSU | King Saud University (Saudi Arabia) | Second ME anchor |
| UAEU | United Arab Emirates University | |
| Kuwait U | Kuwait University | Use "Kuwait U" not "KU" (KU is too easily confused with KSU) |
| SQU | Sultan Qaboos University (Oman) | |
| QF | Qatar Foundation | |
| KISR | Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research | |
| KNPC | Kuwait National Petroleum Company | Transition evidence only — Goldberg appears on Line 74; not a direct name-use exemplar |
| Dasman | Dasman Diabetes Institute | |
| Sabah | Sabah Al Ahmad Center |
| Name | Role | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Joshua B. Goldberg | Partner; named defendant | Always full name in caption; "Goldberg" thereafter |
| Sushil Nath | Partner | |
| Gerald Meyer | Partner | |
| Martha Long | NGM client-correspondence staff | Sender on the bulk of the 23,508 client emails |
| Valencia Gray (VG) | NGM accounting staff | Signs the trust-to-operating sweeps (turn-and-burn signer) |
| Debbie Schaefer | NGM CPA of record | Signed reconciliations; excluded Freedom Bank from 6/26/25 Kren report |
| MaryJane Harper | Bookkeeper | |
| James Lafave | USPTO docketing personnel | Typed the PTOL-85B "for printing" name choices |
| Tanya Harkins | NGM staff | |
| Howard Kline | NGM staff | |
| Ilirian Durri | NGM staff |
| Label | Notes |
|---|---|
| NGM | Nath, Goldberg & Meyer — informal collective label |
| Nath & Associates PLLC | The actual DC LLC; recipient of the trust-to-operating sweeps |
| Goldtree Realty LLC | NGM landlord-of-record; Goldberg/Meyer/Nath are members per LITMAN004080 |
| A2Z IP LLC | Related party in the rent / distribution chain |
| Label | Role |
|---|---|
| Connell Foley | Plaintiff's counsel of record |
| Scott Woller | Lead attorney at Connell Foley |
| Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C. | Presiding judge (reassigned from Maslow at 02/19/2026 PC) |
LITMAN###### (six digits, zero-padded)RCL-PROD-###### (proposed prefix to keep corpora separate)LITMAN209485 (C2051472_ND0000207537.msg)Exhibit [#] — [One-line description] | [Date of Use] | [Client] | Bates [######]
Example: Exhibit 1 — Goldberg "our attorney" email re KFU Docket 33160.75U | 12/20/2023 | KFU | Bates LITMAN209485
| Label | Full name |
|---|---|
| POA | Power of Attorney |
| NOA | Notice of Allowance |
| OA | Office Action |
| IFEE | Issue Fee Transmittal |
| IDS | Information Disclosure Statement |
| RCE | Request for Continued Examination |
| TPR | Terminal Disclaimer |
| PTOL-85 / PTOL-85B | Notice of Allowance form / "for printing on the patent front page" subform |
| IFW | Image File Wrapper (USPTO file history) |
| ODP | USPTO Open Data Portal (api.uspto.gov) |
When citing internal memos, give the path ((case research corpus)) and date. When citing built binders, give the path and the version (e.g., (case research corpus) (1,000-exhibit production tier)).
Two parallel client-correspondence cascades — both run by Goldberg-supervised employees, distinguished by practice area, supervisor-employee role, and exemplar client. Use these labels precisely; don't conflate.
| Term | Practice area | Employee | Role | Exemplar client | Volume marker |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-cascade | Patents | Martha Long | Employed paralegal | KFU (King Faisal University) | 769–880 within-SOL Litman-name uses anchored to the 12 post-7/21/2024 patents |
| Kline-cascade | Trademarks | Howard W. Kline | Employee attorney | Nicola Pizza, Inc. | 2,678 Kline emails (91% CC'ing Litman); 1,813 trademark-specific; 245 trademark dockets |
Distinguish from Lafave. James Lafave (Reg. 71013) is the patent employee attorney who manually signed all 12 post-SOL PTOL-85B Box-2 entries. Lafave is not a paralegal. Lafave is not the trademark counterpart. Lafave's role is upstream from the cascade (he chooses the face-page name); Long and Kline are downstream (they send the client emails). All three under Defendant Goldberg's supervision.
When deploying "imprimatur" (Section (c) above) at trial / MSJ, use the twin-exemplar pairing:
The twin-exemplar structure proves the imprimatur was a firm-wide commercial asset, not a single-practice-area artifact.