Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 (NY 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: 2026-04-29 Authority: CPLR 3107 (notice of deposition); CPLR 3113 (conduct of examination); CPLR 3115 (objections); CPLR 3116 (signature/use); CPLR 3126 (sanctions); 22 NYCRR § 221 (uniform deposition rules); CPLR 4503 (attorney–client privilege); CPLR 4518 (business records); CPLR 4540 (records of public officers).
Status posture. Goldberg failed to appear at the noticed 2/24/2026 deposition (Spoliation Chronology SP-041). Re-noticed deposition must be completed by 6/2/2026. This outline is written to be useable cold by counsel, with every line of attack pre-anchored to a Bates-stamped exhibit so that no preparation is required to push past an evasive answer.
Three governing framings (per memory). 1. Publication framing (
feedback_publication_framing.md): the harm is Goldberg-caused publication of Plaintiff's name on patent face pages. Not signature forgery. Bar-account analog: the firm cannot change credentialed federal records bearing a registered practitioner's name without that practitioner's written authorization. 2. Royalty, not commission (feedback_royalty_not_commission.md): the 20 % is a royalty (per the arbitrator's own characterization). Not "commission," not "back pay," not "wages." 3. NY State court (feedback_ny_state_rules.md): cite CPLR only. No FRE, no FRCP, no 28 U.S.C.
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Witness | Joshua B. Goldberg, Esq. |
| Role in case | Defendant (sole, post-12/5/2025 dismissal of Counts I–IV) |
| USPTO Reg. No. | 44,126 (verified — reference_litman_uspto_reg.md; cf. Plaintiff's Reg. 30,868; Lafave's Reg. 71,013) |
| Concurrent Bar admissions | DC Bar; VA Bar (per project_jurisdiction.md — admitted DC + VA, NOT NY) |
| Title 1 | Co-managing partner, Nath & Associates, PLLC d/b/a Nath, Goldberg & Meyer (admitted Answer ¶ 8) |
| Title 2 | Member/OWNER, A2Z IP LLC (NGM landlord co-owner per LITMAN004080; project_ngm_entity_structure.md) |
| Title 3 | Member, Goldtree Realty LLC (NGM landlord co-owner per LITMAN004080) |
| Title 4 | Officer, Director, Registered Agent, OWNER of LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. (Va. SCC Entity 02437754); signed under Va. Class 1 misdemeanor liability dated 5/27/2025; annual report filed 7/28/2025 (project_llo_va_scc_goldberg_owner.md) |
| Counsel of record | Connell Foley LLP — Leo J. Hurley, Jr.; Aaron H. Gould; Jared F. Hotchkiss (875 Third Ave., NY, NY 10022) |
| Custodial accounts (relevant) | jgoldberg@nathlaw.com; nva@nathlaw.com; access to NGM Deposit Account 14-0112; signing authority on Bank of America Operating 003926172417 and Eagle Bank Trust 0495 |
Bring all exhibits in two binders. Binder A = chronological (so the witness sees the timeline build). Binder B = thematic (POA stack, PTOL-85B stack, financial stack, spoliation stack), to be cross-handed when the witness equivocates. Pre-mark with sequential exhibit numbers Ex. 1 → Ex. 38; CPLR 3115(d) reserves objections.
| Ex. | Document | Bates / Source | Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3/29/2017 Combination Agreement | ~/Downloads/NGM Litman Agreement.pdf (full OCR output/COMBINATION_AGREEMENT_FULL_TEXT_OCR.md) |
Para. 5 (non-partner), Para. 17 (integration), Para. 9 (Litman-Originated definition) |
| 2 | 5/7/2017 Amendment to Combination Agreement | output/BOTH_AGREEMENTS_COMPLETE_ANALYSIS.html § 3 |
Para. 3 enumerated asset list (no name); Para. 6 continuation |
| 3 | 4/15/2017 Assignment Nunc Pro Tunc — Reel 007281, Frame 0821 | USPTO recorded document | Goldberg-signed: "Assignor owns his name, signature, voice, image, photograph or likeness" |
| 4 | 4/22/2021 Goldberg email | LITMAN-prod corpus |
Goldberg's own admission: "the Agreement does not mention the trademark rights, just the 4patent URLs" |
| 5 | 4/30/2021 Litman email | ND0000270242 |
"The assignment of the LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. mark does not include the right to use my name separate and apart from the mark." |
| 6 | 6/14/2023 Final Arbitration Award (Arb. Horne) | Arb. record | Termination 6/15/2020; 20 % characterized as royalty for "the privilege of servicing the lucrative client base"; "NGM was created as the alter ego for its partners" |
| Ex. | Document | Bates / Source | Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Exhibit A 12-Patent Face-Page Packet (US 12,043,608; 12,043,609; 12,049,459; 12,054,460; 12,054,464; 12,062,780; 12,065,424; 12,071,437; D1,046,141; 12,114,620; 12,116,333; 12,194,434) | LITMAN000012 → LITMAN000139 (12 anchors); full packet output/research_2026_04_28_overnight/EXHIBIT_A_PACKET_12_PATENTS_2026-04-29_FINAL.md |
Each face page bears (74)-line "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer; Richard C. Litman" — § 51 publication element. |
| 8 | PTOL-85B for US 12,194,434 — IFEE 2024-05-28; Lafave-signed; Box 2 Line 2 = "Richard C. Litman" | evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_12194434_*.pdf |
Per-patent affirmative manual election. |
| 9 | PTOL-85B for US 12,083,156 — IFEE 2024-08-02; Goldberg-self-signed /Joshua B. Goldberg/ Reg. 44,126; Box 2 Line 2 = "Joshua B. Goldberg" | output/research_2026_04_28_overnight/PTOL_85B_GOLDBERG_SAMPLE_30_TEXT/12083156.txt |
Goldberg's own pen-to-paper compliance with the per-patent S-signature rule — collapses 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2)(i) either-or trap. |
| 10 | PTOL-85B for US 12,180,171 — IFEE 2024-09-16; Goldberg-self-signed; Box 2 Line 2 = "Joshua B. Goldberg" | PTOL_85B_GOLDBERG_SAMPLE_30_TEXT/12180171.txt |
Second Goldberg-self-signed PTOL-85B; defeats "I never saw the form" defense. |
| 11 | PTOL-85B for US 12,127,901 — IFEE 2024-09-25; Lafave-signed; Box 2 Line 2 = "James Lafave" (Lafave's own name) | output/patent_count_refresh/ptol85b_pdfs/12127901_18628953_ifee.pdf |
Forecloses every "default field"/"automation" defense. Same form, same signer, three different names in Box 2 across 2024. |
| 12 | POA stack — 16 Goldberg-signed PTO/AIA/82A POAs (3/16/2023 → 1/17/2025) designating CN-37833 with Plaintiff in correspondence block | NGM POA series Bates LITMAN000361 – LITMAN000513 (60 POAs, 153 pages) | 16 personal pen-to-paper acts by Goldberg over 22 months. Defeats Answer ¶ 33 denial. |
| 13 | Live USPTO ODP API result, 2026-04-25: 462 NGM CN-37833 grants post-7/21/2024 — Litman 12 (2.6 %), Goldberg 449 (97.2 %), Lafave 1 | output/patent_count_refresh/ngm_cn37833_grants_classified.csv; project_post_sol_aor_split.md |
Empirical proof of per-patent election capability. |
| 14 | Lens.org JSON (live 2026-04-29) for US 12,194,434 still returning agent = "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer; Richard C. Litman" | output/research_2026_04_28_overnight/EXHIBIT_B_REPRESENTATIVE_SAMPLE_MATRIX_2026-04-29.md Ex. B-8 |
Continuing INID-keyed downstream republication. |
| Ex. | Document | Bates / Source | Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | "Status of Pending Work for by King Saud University December 2022" — Word doc, metadata author = "Joshua Goldberg", created = 2022-12-30 18:57 UTC, MD5 b5fa56d3bfe9db129bd1dd7261bf48f0. 167+ KSU matters tracked under Plaintiff's name; Section 1 docket 33056.80 "On Hold" $13,500 → child app issued US 12,194,434 (Ex. 7 anchor) on 1/14/2025. |
evidence/uncle_supplied/Status_of_KSU_Cases_2022-12-30_Goldberg_authored.docx |
Earliest Goldberg-authored supervision artifact post-termination. CPLR 4518 self-authenticates via metadata; no foundation witness needed. |
| 16 | AR Report 202602_RL — generated 2/17/2026 by Goldberg with SortByResponsible:true; surfaces $1,285,703.04 still attributed under "Responsible RL" 19 mo. post-SOL; single "responsible JBG" line = KSU 33115.20U $16,700 |
evidence/AR_Report_202602_RL.xlsx; project_ar_report_responsible_jbg.md |
Two intent indicators: (a) Goldberg ran it; (b) the parameter was chosen to expose the JBG/RL split. |
| 17 | Martha Long → KSU email 7/22/2024 subject "RE: Office Action Notification for King Saud University -- Docket: 33092.30U"; signature carries "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer; attorney Richard C. Litman" | LITMAN002000 |
One of 4,374 post-SOL client emails; commercial purpose in trade. |
| 18 | Martha Long → KFU email 12/20/2023 referring to Plaintiff as "our attorney" | LITMAN209485 |
Pre-SOL course-of-conduct; willfulness anchor. |
| 19 | USPTO eGrant Notification email 2025-01-14 — system-generated TO litman@4patent.com; uspto_nva@nathlaw.com; jgoldberg@nathlaw.com; body lists Plaintiff at 112 S. West Street as the firm's correspondence-address attorney |
LITMAN049568 |
One of 688 post-SOL "USPTO-to-both" emails; same-day pair with Ex. 7 (US 12,194,434). |
| 20 | NGM Professional Liability Insurance application 7/6/2021 signed by Goldberg, listing Plaintiff as "Of Counsel" | partial production NGM-Insurance00001-00455 (Goldberg DR Item 4) |
Private commercial use post-disability. Defeats "disability = termination = no relationship." |
| 21 | Hashtag Sports cease-and-desist letter 7/24/2025 signed "Richard C. Litman and Howard W. Kline" — 6 days post-elimination of Plaintiff's email accounts | IMG_1674_HashtagSports_Letter |
Latest verified § 51 use; post-suit, post-elimination. |
| 22 | VA SCC LLO 2025 Annual Report, signed 5/27/2025 by Goldberg under Va. misdemeanor liability as Officer/Director/RA/OWNER; filed 7/28/2025 | evidence/VA_SCC_LLO_Annual_Report_2025_filed_2025-07-28.pdf |
Sworn entity-of-record assertion of ownership in a name Plaintiff carved out 4/30/2021 (Ex. 5). |
| Ex. | Document | Bates / Source | Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | 5/1/2025 12:43 PM CN-37833 USPTO Patent Center edit — Plaintiff's name removed from correspondence block | BEFORE: ND0000058048 AFTER: ND0000069257; project_cn37833_removal.md |
Silent unilateral edit; zero authorizing emails to ebc@uspto.gov in 276K corpus. |
| 24 | 7/18/2025 elimination of litman@4patent.com and rlitman@nathlaw.com (one day after Plaintiff's litigation threat) |
Litman text 7/18/25 (Motion Ex. I); Spoliation SP-019 | Most temporally damning act in the corpus. |
| 25 | 7/22/2025 12:55 CDT Freedom Bank wire — $24,495.15 from acct 220001028 to "Nath and Associates" BoA NYC; wire memo typed verbatim "NGM Bank to Bank transfer Close Account" (one day after suit filed) | ND0000071721 (6 Bates copies); Spoliation SP-022 |
Strongest standalone spoliation exhibit. |
| 26 | 7/28/2025 Freedom Bank account 220001028 formally closed | Plaintiff declaration § XXIII; Spoliation SP-025 | Centerpiece of three-wave spoliation theory. |
| 27 | 6/26/2025 Schaefer/Kren Report — Exhibit A to (now-dismissed) federal complaint — OMITS Freedom Bank account from account overview | aaa_lawsuit_package_20250728/Report_20250626_021254.pdf; Spoliation SP-012 |
Selective concealment (Schaefer's source data row 117345 contains the 5/8/2024 KSU $129,680 Freedom Bank wire). |
| 28 | 6/30/2025 NGM Trust Register lists "t20 – Freedom Trust_1028 $24,495.15" 6 days after Schaefer omission | Trust Register Report June 2025.pdf; Spoliation SP-013 |
Eliminates "we didn't know about Freedom" defense. |
| 29 | 9/2/2025 OpenGov registration as "Joshua Goldberg litman@4patent.com" 46 days post-elimination | Motion Ex. K; Spoliation SP-030 | Goldberg's affirmative re-use of Plaintiff's email identifier post-suit. |
| 30 | 3/17/2026 Gould letter "your access to your two NGM e-mail accounts has never been revoked" | LITMAN006237; Spoliation SP-044 |
Counsel-level admission flatly contradicting Ex. 24. |
| 31 | 133-day zero-Goldberg gap in NGM's own ND0001 production (8/5/2025 → 12/15/2025); 1,738–2,873 emails/month produced, but zero Goldberg-tagged outbound in those 133 days | output/EMAIL_METADATA_ND0001.csv; Spoliation SP-051 |
Empirical proof of selective production scrub of the central custodian. |
| Ex. | Document | Bates / Source | Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 32 | Goldberg's Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65, 1/20/2026) — ¶¶ 32 + 72 admissions | NYSCEF docket | Admits Plaintiff's name appeared on patent fronts and on NGM website after 6/15/2020. |
| 33 | Same — ¶ 33 denial that Goldberg "caused" the use | NYSCEF Doc #65 | Direct impeachment target, against Ex. 12 (16 POAs) + Ex. 9–10 (2 self-signed PTOL-85Bs). |
| 34 | Same — ¶ 38 denial of Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment paragraph | NYSCEF Doc #65 | Direct impeachment target, against Ex. 3 (the document Goldberg himself recorded). |
| 35 | Goldberg Discovery Responses 2/26/2026 — Request 1: lone consent basis = Combination Agreements + "communications requesting continuing association to facilitate payments" | court_filings/Goldberg_Discovery_Responses_2026-02-26.pdf |
Sworn limit on consent theory; Goldberg cannot at trial expand beyond Ex. 1 + Ex. 2 + payment-related correspondence. |
| Ex. | Document | Bates / Source | Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 36 | NGM Payment Allocation Reports through 6/2025 reflecting Plaintiff's 20 % royalty share = $2,108,387 (22 mo.) / $2,412,428 (24 mo.) | project_damages_anchor_corrected.md; produced PARs in NGM-prod |
Verified math: $2.1M ÷ $10.5M gross = 20.00 % exactly. |
| 37 | PCLaw / Soluno write-off master list — $336,571 / 116 entries; AssumeProvisionalWriteOffReal flag; Write-Off Journal never produced | output/CLIENT_LEVEL_WRITE_OFF_MASTER_LIST.md; project_writeoff_master_list.md |
CPLR 3122-a target. |
| 38 | October 2025 NGM Trust Transfer Journal — 108 KSU dockets / $317,746 swept under "expired J. Goldberg F[iles]" label; 110/111 signed "VG" (Valencia Gray); July 2025 TTJ KSU $39,292 / 11 dockets / VG-signed (matched pattern) | 4thQTR Trust Transfer Journal Oct 2025; project_july_2025_trust_transfer_journal.md |
Systematic post-suit revenue sweep, not isolated. |
Pacing. Allocate ~30 min per topic for a 7-hour deposition (CPLR / 22 NYCRR § 221.2 cap). Foundation laid in writing, not on-the-fly. Use the bracket technique: open-ended setup; pin to a number/date; introduce the contradicting exhibit only after the witness is locked in.
Phrasing rubric. "Direct your attention to" / "Have you seen this document before?" / "Is this a true and accurate copy of...?" / "Whose signature appears on the line marked...?" — CPLR 3107 / 3113 plain-language form. Never ask "isn't it true that" — leading is permitted at depo (22 NYCRR § 221.2) but reads as cross-examination at trial. Open-ended questions backed by documents force admissions that bind under CPLR 3117.
Setup 1. Please state your full name and current professional address. 2. Are you admitted to practice law in New York State? 3. In which jurisdictions are you currently admitted? 4. What is your USPTO registration number? 5. Describe your current titles and roles at Nath & Associates, PLLC. 6. Are you a member or owner of any other entity related to Nath & Associates' operations? Please describe each. 7. What is your relationship to Goldtree Realty LLC and A2Z IP LLC? 8. What is your relationship to LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD., the Va. corporation?
Foundation for Ex. 22 9. Direct your attention to Exhibit 22, the 2025 Annual Report for LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. filed with the Virginia State Corporation Commission. Have you seen this document before? 10. Whose signature appears on Exhibit 22? 11. Is the signature on Exhibit 22 your signature? 12. On what date did you sign Exhibit 22? 13. Under what office did you sign — Officer, Director, Registered Agent, or Owner? 14. At the time you signed Exhibit 22, were you familiar with Va. Code § 13.1-1078 making a false statement on a corporate annual report a Class 1 misdemeanor?
Substance 15. What is your basis for asserting that you and Mr. Meyer are the OWNERS of LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD.? 16. Plaintiff's name does not appear on Exhibit 22 in any officer, director, or owner field. Why?
Impeachment 17. (If witness equivocates as to ownership) Direct your attention to Exhibit 5, Plaintiff's 4/30/2021 email reading: "the assignment of the LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. mark does not include the right to use my name separate and apart from the mark." Did you receive Exhibit 5? (Pin yes/no.) What did you do in response?
Setup 1. Direct your attention to Exhibit 1, the Combination Agreement dated 3/29/2017. Have you seen Exhibit 1 before? 2. Whose signatures appear on Exhibit 1? 3. Is the document referred to as the "Amended Combination Agreement" in your discovery responses Exhibit 2 (the 5/7/2017 Amendment)?
Foundation 4. Did Plaintiff sell his intellectual property law practice to Nath & Associates pursuant to Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2? 5. Plaintiff's role under Para. 5 of Exhibit 1 was Senior Counsel. Was Plaintiff a partner of Nath & Associates? (If "no" — pin admission. If "yes" — confront with Para. 5 verbatim text "shall not be a partner.") 6. Para. 17 of Exhibit 1 describes the Combination Agreement as the parties' "complete and integrated agreement," modifiable only by a writing signed by both Co-Managing Partners and Plaintiff. Yes or no?
Substance 7. Does Exhibit 1 contain the word "consent"? 8. Does Exhibit 1 contain any provision granting NGM the right to use Plaintiff's personal name on patents? 9. Direct your attention to Para. 3 of Exhibit 2 — the enumerated asset list: phone numbers, URLs, GAIN/MENA online groups, Freedom Bank accounts, USPTO Customer Numbers 24396 and 37833. Was Plaintiff's personal name on this list? 10. Did the parties ever execute a written modification adding name-use rights to Exhibit 1 or Exhibit 2?
Impeachment of consent defense (Ex. 35) 11. Direct your attention to Exhibit 35, your sworn discovery response of 2/26/2026. In response to Plaintiff's request for the document on which you base your authority to use his name, you cited only "the Combination Agreements" and "Plaintiff's communications to Defendant requesting his continuing association with the NGM to facilitate payments." Is that response complete? 12. Other than Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, is there any document you contend grants you written consent to use Plaintiff's name on patents issued after 6/15/2020?
Sample CPLR-compliant phrasing — single most powerful question:
"Mr. Goldberg, you have testified — and your sworn discovery responses confirm — that the only documents you contend authorize you to publish Plaintiff's name on a United States patent issued after June 15, 2020 are the 2017 Combination Agreement and 2017 Amendment, both pre-marked as Exhibits 1 and 2. Please point to the line, page, or paragraph of either document that grants you the right to publish Plaintiff's name on the front page of a United States patent."
Setup 1. Are you familiar with USPTO Form PTO/AIA/82A, Power of Attorney? 2. As a registered USPTO practitioner with Reg. No. 44,126, are you required to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.4 governing personal signatures?
Foundation — for each of three POAs (rotate) 3. Direct your attention to Exhibit 12-A (POA dated, e.g., 2024-01-16, for App. 18/414,442). Have you seen Exhibit 12-A before? 4. Whose signature appears on the signature line of Exhibit 12-A? 5. Is that your signature? 6. On what date did you sign Exhibit 12-A? 7. Under whose authority did you sign Exhibit 12-A? 8. What customer number does Exhibit 12-A designate? 9. Whose name appears in the correspondence-block of Exhibit 12-A?
Substance 10. Why did you designate Customer Number 37833 on Exhibit 12-A? 11. Why did Plaintiff's name appear in the correspondence block of Exhibit 12-A? 12. Did you read Exhibit 12-A before signing it? 13. Did Plaintiff sign Exhibit 12-A? 14. Did Plaintiff authorize you to sign Exhibit 12-A? 15. Did Plaintiff authorize you to designate Customer Number 37833?
Volume sequence 16. Approximately how many similar Powers of Attorney did you personally sign between 3/16/2023 and 1/17/2025? 17. (Pin number; if low, walk through Ex. 12 binder one at a time.)
Impeachment of Answer ¶ 33 (Ex. 33) 18. Direct your attention to Exhibit 33, paragraph 33 of your Answer, in which you deny the allegations of paragraph 33 of the Second Amended Complaint relating to "causing" Plaintiff's name to appear on patent records. Is your denial in paragraph 33 of your Answer consistent with your having personally signed sixteen Powers of Attorney designating Plaintiff's name in the correspondence block?
Setup 1. Are you familiar with USPTO Form PTOL-85 Part B, the Issue Fee Transmittal? 2. Specifically, are you familiar with Box 2, the field labeled "For printing on the patent front page"? 3. What does the instruction "If no name is listed, no name will be printed" mean to you as a registered USPTO practitioner?
Foundation Ex. 9 / 10 (Goldberg-self-signed PTOL-85Bs) 4. Direct your attention to Exhibit 9, the PTOL-85B for U.S. Patent No. 12,083,156. Have you seen Exhibit 9 before? 5. Whose signature appears on the signature line of Exhibit 9? 6. Is that your signature? 7. What name appears on Line 1 of Box 2 of Exhibit 9? 8. What name appears on Line 2 of Box 2 of Exhibit 9? 9. On what date did you sign Exhibit 9? 10. Repeat 4–9 for Exhibit 10 (US 12,180,171, IFEE 2024-09-16).
Substance — establishes per-patent capability 11. By personally signing Exhibits 9 and 10 with your name typed in Box 2 Line 2, you understood that Box 2 Line 2 is what would be printed on the (74)-line of the front page of the issued patent — correct? 12. Do you understand that Box 2 Line 2 controls a per-patent decision? 13. Do you know who James Lafave is? 14. Is Mr. Lafave a registered USPTO practitioner under your supervision? 15. Approximately how many PTOL-85B forms did Mr. Lafave sign on behalf of NGM in 2024 charging issue fees to Deposit Account 14-0112? 16. On what basis did Mr. Lafave determine which name to type into Box 2 Line 2 of any given form?
Substance — Ex. 8 (Litman in Box 2) and Ex. 11 (Lafave in Box 2) 17. Direct your attention to Exhibit 8, the PTOL-85B for U.S. Patent No. 12,194,434. Whose name appears on Line 2 of Box 2? 18. Direct your attention to Exhibit 11, the PTOL-85B for U.S. Patent No. 12,127,901, dated 9/25/2024 — three months after Exhibit 8 — same signer, same firm, same Deposit Account 14-0112. Whose name appears on Line 2 of Box 2? 19. Within a 7-month window — Exhibit 8 (Litman), Exhibit 9 (you), Exhibit 11 (Lafave) — three different names were typed in Box 2 Line 2 by registered NGM practitioners. Was the choice of name in Box 2 Line 2 a per-patent decision?
Impeachment 20. (If witness denies awareness) Direct attention back to Exhibit 9. By personally typing your own name on Box 2 Line 2 on 8/2/2024, in the same SOL window as Exhibit 8, did you have personal knowledge of how the (74)-line on a U.S. patent is set?
Setup 1. Direct your attention to Exhibit 7, a binder of front pages of twelve U.S. patents issued between 7/23/2024 and 1/14/2025. Have you seen these patents? 2. For each of the twelve patents in Exhibit 7, what name appears on the (74)-line — the line designating "Attorney, Agent, or Firm"?
Foundation (CPLR 4540 self-authentication of USPTO public records) 3. Are these patents official records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office? 4. Were these patents issued under NGM Customer Number 37833?
Substance — empirical proof of per-patent election 5. Direct your attention to Exhibit 13. This is the result of a query of the USPTO Open Data Platform on 4/25/2026 returning 462 NGM Customer-Number-37833 patents granted on or after 7/21/2024. Of those 462 patents, how many list Plaintiff in the (74)-line? 6. How many list you in the (74)-line? 7. How many list Mr. Lafave? 8. Across that 462-patent universe, was the (74)-line attribution determined per-patent or by a global default? 9. Who at NGM controlled the per-patent (74)-line decision? 10. Did you supervise that decision?
Per-patent walk-through (use 3 of 12) - Ex. 7-A: US 12,043,608 (KFU, 7/23/2024). - Ex. 7-J: US 12,114,620 (KISR, 10/15/2024). - Ex. 7-L: US 12,194,434 (KSU, 1/14/2025).
For each, ask: (i) Have you seen the patent? (ii) Whose name appears on the (74)-line? (iii) Did Plaintiff personally prosecute this patent? (iv) Did Plaintiff personally authorize his name to appear on the (74)-line? (v) How was the name in the (74)-line chosen?
Impeachment (Ex. 32 admission) 11. Direct your attention to Exhibit 32, paragraph 32 of your Answer, where you admit that "Plaintiff's name appeared on the front page of patents issued to Plaintiff's originated clients after June 15, 2020." Is paragraph 32 a true statement?
Setup 1. Are you familiar with King Saud University as an NGM client? 2. Did you personally supervise NGM's work on KSU matters during the period 6/15/2020 through the present? 3. Did you personally author internal status documents tracking KSU matters during that period?
Foundation — metadata-baked authentication, no foundation witness needed (CPLR 4518) 4. Direct your attention to Exhibit 15, a Microsoft Word document titled "Status of Pending Work for by King Saud University December 2022." Have you seen Exhibit 15 before? 5. The document properties of Exhibit 15 list the author as "Joshua Goldberg" and the last-modified-by as "Joshua Goldberg," with a created timestamp of 2022-12-30 18:57 UTC. Are those your initials? 6. Did you author Exhibit 15? 7. (If denies) Did anyone at NGM use your Microsoft Word account to author documents in your name?
Substance 8. Section 1 of Exhibit 15 lists 20 KSU matters described as "paid but on hold," totalling approximately $270,000. Among them is docket 33056.80 at $13,500. Is this a docket originated by Plaintiff? 9. Were you the supervising attorney for docket 33056.80 as of 12/30/2022? 10. Was Plaintiff actively prosecuting docket 33056.80 as of 12/30/2022? 11. Direct your attention back to Exhibit 7-L, U.S. Patent No. 12,194,434, issued 1/14/2025 from a child application in the docket-33056.80 family. Whose name appears on the (74)-line? 12. Twenty-five months passed between Exhibit 15 (12/30/2022) and Exhibit 7-L (1/14/2025). Who supervised that matter during those 25 months?
Impeachment of "courtesy/inadvertent" defense (Tenth Affirmative Defense) 13. Did you author Exhibit 15 as a courtesy to Plaintiff? 14. Did you author Exhibit 15 inadvertently?
Setup 1. Did NGM continue to send emails to Middle East clients after 6/15/2020 referring to Plaintiff as "our attorney"? 2. Was Martha Long an NGM employee during the relevant period? In what role?
Foundation
3. Direct your attention to Exhibit 17, an email dated 7/22/2024 from mlong@nathlaw.com to IPTL@KSU.EDU.SA regarding KSU docket 33092.30U, signature carrying "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer; attorney Richard C. Litman." Have you seen Exhibit 17?
4. Was Ms. Long under your supervision when she sent Exhibit 17?
Substance 5. Approximately how many emails referencing Plaintiff as the attorney did Ms. Long send to Middle East clients between 7/21/2024 and 7/21/2025? 6. Did you instruct Ms. Long to use Plaintiff's name in those emails? 7. Did you instruct Ms. Long to stop using Plaintiff's name in those emails at any point before 9/5/2025?
Foundation Ex. 19 (USPTO-to-both)
8. Direct your attention to Exhibit 19, a USPTO eGrant Notification dated 1/14/2025, addressed to litman@4patent.com, uspto_nva@nathlaw.com, and jgoldberg@nathlaw.com, designating Plaintiff at "112 S. West Street, Alexandria, VIRGINIA, 22314" as the firm's correspondence-address attorney. Did you receive Exhibit 19?
Foundation Ex. 21 (Hashtag Sports cease-and-desist) 9. Direct your attention to Exhibit 21, a cease-and-desist letter from Nath, Goldberg & Meyer dated 7/24/2025 to Hashtag Sports, signed "Richard C. Litman and Howard W. Kline." Are you familiar with this letter? 10. Did Plaintiff sign Exhibit 21? 11. Six days earlier, on 7/18/2025, Plaintiff's email accounts at NGM were eliminated. Yes or no?
Framing rule (
feedback_royalty_not_commission.md+feedback_deferred_payment_not_back_pay.md): call it the 20 % royalty or Plaintiff's 20 % share or deferred payment for the Practice. Never "commission" / "back pay" / "wages."
Setup 1. Are you familiar with NGM Bank of America Operating Account 003926172417? 2. Are you familiar with NGM's Eagle Bank Trust Account 0495? 3. Are you a signatory on either account? 4. Do you have access to NGM Deposit Account 14-0112 with the USPTO?
Foundation Ex. 36 (PARs — Plaintiff's 20 % share) 5. Direct your attention to Exhibit 36, a series of NGM Payment Allocation Reports through 6/2025 reflecting Plaintiff's 20 % share. Are these reports generated by NGM in the regular course of business? (CPLR 4518) 6. According to Exhibit 36, what is the cumulative 20 %-share figure attributable to Plaintiff for the 22-month period referenced? (Anchor: $2,108,387.) 7. According to Exhibit 36, what is the corresponding figure for the 24-month period? (Anchor: $2,412,428.) 8. The arbitrator's 6/14/2023 Final Award characterized the 20 % as a "royalty" for "the privilege of servicing the lucrative client base." Do you dispute that characterization?
Substance 9. Approximately how much revenue did NGM collect from Plaintiff-originated clients between 6/15/2020 and the present? 10. Of that revenue, what percentage was attributable to KFU? KSU? KISR? Other Middle East clients?
Foundation Ex. 38 (TTJ sweeps) 11. Direct your attention to Exhibit 38, the October 2025 NGM Trust Transfer Journal showing a sweep of 108 KSU dockets totaling $317,746 to docket 35610 under the label "expired J. Goldberg F[iles]." Are you familiar with that sweep? 12. Who ordered that sweep? 13. Whose initials appear on 110 of the 111 transfer entries? 14. Why was the label "expired J. Goldberg F[iles]" chosen?
Foundation Ex. 37 (write-offs) 15. Direct your attention to Exhibit 37, a master list of $336,571 in write-offs across 116 entries. Are you familiar with the PCLaw / Soluno "AssumeProvisionalWriteOffReal" flag? 16. Who at NGM has authority to set that flag? 17. Has the Write-Off Journal been produced in this litigation?
Damages — value of name
18. Did NGM pay Plaintiff the 20 % share for KFU revenue collected between 7/21/2024 and the present?
19. Did NGM pay Plaintiff for the use of his name on the (74)-line of any of the twelve patents in Exhibit 7?
20. What is the going market rate for INID-(74) attribution on a U.S. patent issued under a Customer Number 37833 prosecution? (Anchor on $15,000 – $20,000 per patent per feedback_domain_framing_correction.md.)
Setup 1. Are you familiar with the USPTO Patent Center web portal? 2. Do you have administrative access to NGM's Customer Number 37833 records on Patent Center?
Foundation Ex. 23 (5/1/2025 CN-37833 edit)
3. Direct your attention to Exhibit 23, a before/after comparison of the CN-37833 correspondence record showing Plaintiff's name removed at 12:43 PM on 5/1/2025. Are you familiar with that change?
4. Who made that change?
5. Was Plaintiff notified of that change in writing in advance?
6. Was the change documented in any email to ebc@uspto.gov from any NGM email account in the 276,000-document production?
Foundation Ex. 24 (7/18/2025 email elimination)
7. Direct your attention to Exhibit 24. On 7/18/2025, Plaintiff's litman@4patent.com and rlitman@nathlaw.com accounts were eliminated. Did you authorize that elimination?
8. What was the business reason for eliminating those accounts on 7/18/2025?
9. Plaintiff's litigation threat was sent on 7/17/2025. Was the timing of the elimination related to the litigation threat?
Foundation Ex. 25 / 26 (Freedom Bank) 10. Are you familiar with Freedom Bank of Virginia account number 220001028? 11. Was that account used to receive client funds during the period 6/15/2020 through 7/28/2025? 12. Direct your attention to Exhibit 25, a wire-transfer confirmation dated 7/22/2025 12:55 CDT for $24,495.15 from account 220001028 to "Nath and Associates" at Bank of America NYC, with the typed memorandum "NGM Bank to Bank transfer Close Account." Are you familiar with this wire? 13. Who at NGM authorized this wire? 14. Why was the memorandum line "NGM Bank to Bank transfer Close Account" used? 15. On what date was the account formally closed? 16. Why was Freedom Bank account 220001028 not disclosed in the 6/26/2025 Schaefer/Kren Report (Exhibit 27)? 17. Are you familiar with Freedom Bank account number 220001002?
Foundation Ex. 30 (counsel-level "access never revoked") 18. Direct your attention to Exhibit 30, a letter from Aaron H. Gould of Connell Foley dated 3/17/2026 stating "your access to your two NGM e-mail accounts has never been revoked." Did you authorize that statement? 19. Reconcile that statement with Exhibit 24.
Foundation Ex. 16 (AR Report — Goldberg-personally-run)
20. Direct your attention to Exhibit 16, an AR Report run on 2/17/2026 with the parameter SortByResponsible:true. Did you personally run this report?
21. Why did you choose the SortByResponsible:true parameter?
22. Why does Exhibit 16 show $1,285,703.04 in receivables still attributed under "Responsible RL" 19 months after 7/21/2024?
Setup 1. Have you received written communications from Plaintiff demanding that NGM cease using his name? 2. On what dates?
Foundation (multiple Plaintiff demand emails) 3. (Walk through 4/22/2021, 4/30/2021, 5/1/2023, 6/10/2025, 6/24/2025, 6/26/2025 demands.)
Substance — knowing-use (§ 51 exemplary damages standard) 4. After receiving Plaintiff's 4/30/2021 email (Exhibit 5), did you take any action to remove Plaintiff's name from any NGM USPTO record? 5. After receiving Plaintiff's 6/24/2025 email — "There is no basis without my consent that I should still be listed on USPTO filings ... it has to stop" — did you take any action to remove Plaintiff's name from any NGM USPTO record? 6. Did you continue to issue patents listing Plaintiff in the (74)-line after 6/24/2025?
Trap question 7. As of today, is Plaintiff's name still listed in any NGM-controlled record on the USPTO Patent Center, on Lens.org, on Google Patents, on Espacenet, on Free Patents Online, or in the Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw patent databases?
Closing — Answer ¶ 38 (Ex. 34) 8. Direct your attention to Exhibit 34, paragraph 38 of your Answer, denying allegations relating to a Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment containing identity-rights language. Direct your attention to Exhibit 3, the Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment recorded at USPTO Reel 007281, Frame 0821, signed by you. Are these consistent?
| Answer ¶ | Pleading text | Contradicting exhibit | Probative effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| ¶ 1 | Admits Plaintiff "sold his intellectual property law practice in 2017 pursuant to the terms of the Parties' Combination Agreement and subsequent agreements." | Ex. 1 + Ex. 2 (no name-use clause); Ex. 3 (NPT — Goldberg's own carve-out admission) | Concedes operative-document set; pinned by Ex. 35 sworn limitation. |
| ¶ 6 | Denies "deferred purchase payments." | Ex. 1 Para. 7 / Ex. 2 Para. 1 (verbatim "deferred monetary compensation equal to twenty percent (20%) of the Revenue"); Ex. 36 PARs ($2.1M / $2.4M) | Direct contradiction by the agreement Goldberg himself relies on. |
| ¶ 8 | Admits co-managing partner of NGM. | Ex. 22 (VA SCC Annual Report — sworn ownership) | Confirms partner-level personal liability for firm acts. |
| ¶ 32 | Admits Plaintiff's name appeared on patent face pages and on NGM's website after 6/15/2020. | Ex. 7 (12 face-page elections); Ex. 13 (462-patent universe); Wayback snapshots 2024-07-22 → 2025-09-05 | Element 1 of § 51 conceded. |
| ¶ 33 | Denies that Goldberg "caused" Plaintiff's name to appear on patent records. | Ex. 12 (16 personally signed POAs); Ex. 9 + Ex. 10 (2 personally signed PTOL-85Bs); Ex. 15 (Goldberg-authored 12/30/22 KSU status); Ex. 16 (2/17/26 AR Report run by Goldberg); Ex. 19 (2025-01-14 USPTO-to-both eGrant) | Direct impeachment. Goldberg's own pen-to-paper acts and metadata-baked authorship demonstrate causation. |
| ¶ 38 | Denies allegations regarding the Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment with identity-rights language. | Ex. 3 (Goldberg-recorded USPTO Reel 007281 Frame 0821: "Assignor owns his name, signature, voice, image, photograph or likeness") | Direct impeachment by a federal record Goldberg himself caused to be filed. CPLR 4540 self-authenticates. |
| ¶ 39 | Admits Plaintiff "physically disabled" in June 2020. | Goldberg's 1/18/2023 MSJ + 5/24/2023 Post-Arb Brief positioning disability = death; arbitrator accepted | Disability-sword: a "dead" person cannot consent; defeats Tenth Affirmative Defense. |
| ¶ 40 | "Lacks knowledge or information" as to Plaintiff's belief he remained Senior Counsel on medical leave. | Ex. 20 (7/6/2021 NGM Professional Liability Insurance application — Goldberg-signed, Plaintiff listed as "Of Counsel"); 9/2020 emails per LITMAN_NON_CONSENT_DECLARATION ¶ 27L; Wayback nathlaw.com 6/21/2025 still listing Plaintiff as "PATENT ATTORNEY" |
"Lacks knowledge" impermissible as to facts in Goldberg's own files. |
| ¶ 72 | Admits patent face-page + website appearance after 6/15/2020; denies "without consent." | Ex. 1 + Ex. 2 (no consent clause); Ex. 35 (sworn limit on consent theory); Ex. 5 (4/30/2021 reservation); 9/3/2025 Gould "proposed use agreement" admission | Without-consent element conclusively shown by the documents Goldberg himself identified. |
| ¶ 73 | Denies. | All Topic 8 damages exhibits (36, 37, 38); 8 withheld monthly PARs ($1.81M); $317,746 KSU October sweep | Damages element. |
| ¶ 74 | Denies. | All willfulness exhibits Topic 9–10 | Knowing-use / exemplary-damages instruction supported. |
| First AD (SOL) | Statute of limitations. | Ex. 7 (12 post-7/21/2024 issue dates); Ex. 14 (continuing Lens.org republication); Ex. 22 (7/28/2025 VA SCC re-filing) | Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365, 371–72 (2002) modification/redistribution exception. |
| Third AD (single publication) | First-publication rule. | Ex. 7 (per-patent grants — separate gov't instruments); Ex. 13 (12 vs. 449 split — per-patent capability); Ex. 17 (each Long email = new audience); Ex. 22 (annual SCC re-filing) | Per-patent SOL clocks; Firth exception. |
| Fifth AD (waiver/estoppel/laches/unclean hands) | Equitable defenses. | Ex. 5 (4/30/2021 reservation); 4/22/2021, 5/1/2023, 6/24/2025 demands; Ex. 24 (7/18/2025 email cut-off — defendant's unclean hands) | Defeated by repeated written non-consent. |
| Sixth + Seventh AD (res judicata / collateral estoppel) | Prior arbitration preclusion. | 6/14/2023 Final Award found termination 6/15/2020; 12/5/2025 dismissal of Counts I–IV preserves Count V | Arbitration's termination finding assists Plaintiff (terminated agreement cannot grant continuing consent). |
| Tenth AD (consent) | Express/implied consent. | Ex. 35 (sworn limit to Combination Agreements + payment-related correspondence); Ex. 1 + Ex. 2 (no name-use clause); Ex. 5 (express revocation); 9/3/2025 Gould "proposed use agreement" (admitting no existing one); Welch v. Mr. Christmas, 57 N.Y.2d 143, 148 (1982) (written consent required) | Defeated as a matter of law. |
| Document | Foundation lay-down | Substantive impeachment |
|---|---|---|
| Ex. 3 (NPT Assignment, Reel 007281 Frame 0821) | "Direct your attention to Exhibit 3, an Assignment recorded with the United States Patent and Trademark Office at Reel 007281, Frame 0821. Are you familiar with this document? Did you cause it to be recorded with the USPTO? Whose signature appears on the second page?" | "Read aloud the sentence beginning 'Assignee agrees that Assignor owns his name....'" → Then Ex. 34 (¶ 38 denial). |
| Ex. 7 (12 face pages) | "Direct your attention to Exhibit 7, a binder of front pages of twelve U.S. patents. Are these official records of the USPTO?" — under CPLR 4540 the patents are self-authenticating. | "For each, please read the (74)-line aloud." → Establishes element 1 of § 51 twelve times. |
| Ex. 8–11 (PTOL-85Bs) | "Are you familiar with USPTO Form PTOL-85 Part B? Are issue-fee transmittals retained as part of the official prosecution history?" | Box 2 walk-through; Goldberg-self-signed Ex. 9 + 10 close the per-patent capability proof. |
| Ex. 12 (POAs) | "Are you familiar with USPTO Form PTO/AIA/82A?" | Sixteen-form walk in chronological order; pin date and customer number on each. |
| Ex. 13 (USPTO ODP API result) | "Are you familiar with the USPTO Open Data Platform?" (If denies — produce the publicly available ODP documentation as a learned-treatise companion exhibit.) | 462 / 12 / 449 / 1 split. |
| Ex. 19 (USPTO eGrant Notification) | "Are you familiar with USPTO system-generated eGrant Notification emails?" | Read aloud the verbatim "Correspondence Address: Richard C. Litman, Nath, Goldberg & Meyer, 112 S. West Street...." sentence. |
| Ex. 22 (VA SCC LLO Annual Report) | CPLR 4540 — record of officer of state government. "Are you familiar with the Virginia State Corporation Commission?" | Whose signature; signed under what office; what offices held; under what statutory penalty. |
| Document | Foundation lay-down | Substantive impeachment |
|---|---|---|
| Ex. 15 (12/30/2022 KSU status) | "Direct your attention to Exhibit 15. The Microsoft Word document properties — visible on screen — list the author as 'Joshua Goldberg' and the last-modified-by as 'Joshua Goldberg.' Did you author this document? Was it generated in the regular course of NGM's business?" → CPLR 4518(a). | Section 1 docket 33056.80 walk → Ex. 7-L (US 12,194,434) chain. |
| Ex. 16 (AR Report 202602_RL) | "Direct your attention to Exhibit 16, an Accounts Receivable Report bearing the file name 'AR_Report_202602_RL'. Was this report generated by NGM's PCLaw / Soluno system in the regular course of business? Were you the user who ran it?" | $1.28M still under "Responsible RL"; single "Responsible JBG" line at $16,700. |
| Ex. 17 + 18 (Long emails) | "Was Ms. Long an NGM employee? Did she send and receive client correspondence in the regular course of NGM's business?" — emails admissible per CPLR 4518 over Long's signature line plus NGM's email-system metadata. | "Our attorney" + "attorney Richard C. Litman" signature lines. |
| Ex. 25 (Freedom Bank wire) | "Are these wire-transfer confirmations generated by Freedom Bank of Virginia and retained by NGM in the regular course of business?" | Verbatim "NGM Bank to Bank transfer Close Account" memo line. |
| Ex. 28 (June 2025 NGM Trust Register) | "Was the Trust Register generated by NGM in the regular course of business?" | Lists "t20 – Freedom Trust_1028 $24,495.15." |
| Ex. 36 (PARs) | "Are NGM Payment Allocation Reports generated in the regular course of business?" | $2.1M / $2.4M Plaintiff 20 % share. |
| Ex. 37 (write-off list) | "Are write-off entries recorded in the regular course of NGM's PCLaw / Soluno bookkeeping?" | $336,571 / 116 entries; Write-Off Journal never produced. |
| Ex. 38 (Trust Transfer Journal) | Same as Ex. 36. | $317,746 KSU sweep + $39,292 KSU sweep. |
| Document | Foundation | Substantive impeachment |
|---|---|---|
| Ex. 30 (3/17/2026 Gould letter) | "Was the letter sent by your counsel of record on your behalf?" → CPLR 4519 doesn't apply; party admission. | "Access never revoked" vs. Ex. 24 elimination. |
| Ex. 35 (2/26/2026 Discovery Responses) | Sworn under CPLR 130-1.1(a) certification; signed /s/ Aaron H. Gould. |
Limits Goldberg's consent-defense universe. |
Per 22 NYCRR § 221.1 / 221.2 / 221.3, an instruction not to answer is permitted only to (a) preserve a privilege, (b) enforce a court-ordered limitation, or (c) prevent palpable harassment. Speaking objections are barred. Hold counsel to the rule.
"Counsel, on what specific privilege are you instructing the witness not to answer? Please state the privilege on the record. If you are asserting attorney-client privilege under CPLR 4503, please identify the attorney and the client. If you are asserting work product, please identify the litigation in anticipation of which the protection arose. The witness will then either answer or we will adjourn for an immediate ruling under 22 NYCRR § 221.3."
Privilege traps to anticipate: - "Attorney-client privilege" over communications between Goldberg and Long, Lafave, or Dean. Defeat: CPLR 4503 protects attorney–client, not attorney–staff. NGM staff communications regarding internal name-election decisions are not privileged. - "Work product" over the 5/1/2025 CN-37833 edit decision. Defeat: the act itself (filing-system entry on a public USPTO record) is not work product; only attorney mental impressions in anticipation of litigation are. The 5/1/2025 edit pre-dated suit by 81 days.
"Counsel, the question is a percipient-witness question about Mr. Goldberg's own conduct, not about the legal effect of that conduct. The witness may answer."
"Counsel, the request is for the witness's testimony, not the production of public records. Mr. Goldberg has personal knowledge of the records he himself caused to be filed and the records that bear his signature. The witness may answer."
If Goldberg fails to appear again: file CPLR 3126 motion for sanctions citing Spoliation Chronology SP-041; ask for: (a) cost-shifting; (b) preclusion of Goldberg's testimony at trial on each topic addressed by the deposition; (c) striking the Tenth Affirmative Defense (consent). The first no-show is already a basis for relief; the second compounds the pattern.
Each line below is paired to a topic / exhibit set and predicted likelihood of admission. Plan to use admissions for partial-summary-judgment motion under CPLR 3212(e).
| # | Predicted admission | Anchored by | Likelihood |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | He is the co-managing partner of NGM and is admitted in DC and VA, not NY. | Topic 1; ¶ 8 admission | Certain |
| 2 | He personally signed at least the 16 POAs identified in Ex. 12, each designating CN-37833 with Plaintiff in the correspondence block. | Topic 3; Ex. 12 | Certain — physical signature is unanswerable |
| 3 | He personally signed PTOL-85Bs for US 12,083,156 and US 12,180,171 with his own name typed in Box 2 Line 2. | Topic 4; Ex. 9, 10 | Certain — physical signature; metadata; OCR |
| 4 | The choice of name in Box 2 Line 2 of a PTOL-85B is a per-patent decision controlled by the firm. | Topic 4 | High |
| 5 | The 12 patents in Ex. 7 each list Plaintiff in the (74)-line. | Topic 5; Ex. 7 + ¶ 32 | Certain |
| 6 | NGM had the firm-wide capability to elect a different name in the (74)-line — proven by 449 contemporaneous Goldberg-elections. | Topic 5; Ex. 13 | High |
| 7 | He personally authored the 12/30/2022 KSU Status document. | Topic 6; Ex. 15 | High — metadata-baked, no foundation witness needed |
| 8 | He personally ran the 2/17/2026 AR Report with SortByResponsible:true. |
Topic 9; Ex. 16 | High — Soluno audit log will confirm |
| 9 | He recorded the Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment containing the "Assignor owns his name" sentence. | Topic 10; Ex. 3 | High — federal record |
| 10 | He signed the 2025 VA SCC Annual Report for LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. as Officer/Director/RA/OWNER under Va. misdemeanor liability. | Topic 1; Ex. 22 | Certain |
| 11 | NGM continued to issue patents listing Plaintiff in the (74)-line after Plaintiff's 6/24/2025 cease-and-desist. | Topic 10; Ex. 7-L (US 12,194,434 was 1/14/2025, but post-6/24/25 examples in output/POST_SWITCHOVER_LITMAN_ELECTIONS.md) |
Medium — Goldberg may try to deny without the data |
| 12 | The Combination Agreement and 5/7/2017 Amendment do not contain a name-use clause. | Topic 2; Ex. 1, 2, 35 | Certain — pinned by Ex. 35 sworn discovery response |
| 13 | The 2017 agreements have not been modified in writing by all three signatories to add a name-use right. | Topic 2 | Certain — no such writing exists in 276K corpus |
| 14 | NGM collected substantial revenue from KFU, KSU, and KISR clients post-6/15/2020. | Topic 8; Ex. 36, 38 | Certain |
| 15 | NGM did not pay Plaintiff a separate name-use fee for any of the 12 patents in Ex. 7. | Topic 8 | Certain |
Predicted Goldberg push-backs (and counters): - "I delegated PTOL-85B preparation to staff." → Counter with Ex. 9 + Ex. 10 (he personally signed two). - "I assumed Plaintiff still wanted his name on KFU/KSU patents." → Counter with Ex. 5 (4/30/2021 written reservation) and 6/24/2025 demand. - "We were just continuing pre-2020 practice." → Counter with Ex. 13 (449 Goldberg elections in the same window) — capability to switch existed and was routinely exercised. - "Customer Number 37833 was acquired in 2017." → Counter — CN is a USPTO mailbox, not a name license; expressio unius re: enumerated assets in Ex. 2 Para. 3.
Goal: quantify what Goldberg/NGM benefited from the unauthorized use; preserve testimony for a damages model showing (a) the unjust-enrichment compensatory base, (b) the deferred-royalty layer, (c) the willfulness multiplier (3x recommended per
WILLFULNESS_AND_REPUBLICATION_PACK.md§ 4).
Reserve final 30 minutes. Open-ended; preserve trial testimony.
SortByResponsible:true. Yes or no?| File | Use |
|---|---|
output/research_2026_04_28_overnight/EXHIBIT_A_PACKET_12_PATENTS_2026-04-29_FINAL.md |
Source of Ex. 7 |
output/research_2026_04_28_overnight/EXHIBIT_B_REPRESENTATIVE_SAMPLE_MATRIX_2026-04-29.md |
Cross-channel anchor exhibits |
output/research_2026_04_28_overnight/WILLFULNESS_AND_REPUBLICATION_PACK.md |
Willfulness catalog (P0/P1/P2 events) |
output/research_2026_04_28_overnight/SPOLIATION_CHRONOLOGY.md |
Source of Ex. 23–31 |
output/research_2026_04_28_overnight/PTOL_85B_ELECTION_VERIFICATION.md |
Source of Ex. 8–11 |
output/research_2026_04_28_overnight/PRE_2020_CONSENT_AUDIT.md |
Topic 2 + 10 — defeats consent defense |
evidence/uncle_supplied/Status_of_KSU_Cases_2022-12-30_Goldberg_authored.docx |
Ex. 15 native source |
court_filings/Litman v Goldberg Answer 65.pdf |
Ex. 32–34 source |
court_filings/Goldberg_Discovery_Responses_2026-02-26.pdf |
Ex. 35 source |
evidence/AR_Report_202602_RL.xlsx |
Ex. 16 source |
evidence/VA_SCC_LLO_Annual_Report_2025_filed_2025-07-28.pdf |
Ex. 22 source |
output/patent_count_refresh/ngm_cn37833_grants_classified.csv |
Ex. 13 source |
Memory project_court_status.md |
Case posture / damages anchors |
Memory project_post_sol_aor_split.md |
12 / 449 / 1 split |
Memory feedback_publication_framing.md |
Master framing |
Memory feedback_royalty_not_commission.md |
Topic 8 framing |
Memory feedback_validate_every_number.md |
Pre-deposition number-validation pass |
Memory feedback_ny_state_rules.md |
CPLR-only authority |
Prepared 2026-04-29 as attorney work product in support of Plaintiff Richard C. Litman, pro se. Privileged and confidential.