UPDATE 2026-04-07: JULY 2025 REPORT RECOVERED. A July 2025 Payment Allocation Report -- dated 8/11/2025, covering the period July 1-31, 2025 -- has been produced to Litman. The report exists. It was generated on schedule. It was simply not delivered. The "gap" is now Aug-Sep 2025 only (2 months). Critically, this is no longer a spoliation case in the traditional sense -- it is active concealment: Goldberg's office generated the monthly report in the ordinary course of business and withheld it from Litman for nearly eight months. See Section X below for the recovered figures and revised analysis.
Prepared: April 6, 2026 Subject: Missing Payment Allocation Reports for July, August, and September 2025 -- Connection to Email Elimination and Spoliation
There are no Payment Allocation reports for July, August, or September 2025 -- the three months immediately following the elimination of Litman's email accounts on July 18, 2025. This is not a coincidence. The Payment Allocation reports were the primary mechanism by which Litman monitored his 20% share of collected fees. Every month from October 2023 through June 2025 (21 consecutive months), Goldberg produced a Payment Allocation report. Then Litman's email was cut off, and the reports stopped.
The gap period coincides with confirmed non-payment. May and June 2025 shortfalls total $49,385. Summary-level data for July through September 2025 -- obtained only through Goldberg's counsel in January 2026, six months after the fact -- shows $578,425 in collected fees and $115,685 owed to Litman. No client-level detail was provided for these months. No confirmation of payment exists.
Combined with the Q4 2025 shortfall of $246,628 (also produced only through counsel), the total exposure for May through December 2025 reaches $411,698 -- and that figure relies entirely on Goldberg's self-reported numbers without independent verification.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 10, 2025 | Litman demands removal from website: "taking me off the website" |
| June 24, 2025 | Litman: "no basis without my consent" to be listed on USPTO filings |
| June 26, 2025 | Litman: "That is the answer that gets you into litigation" -- explicit litigation threat |
| June 26, 2025 | Heba Carter (NGM counsel) sends formal notice of affiliation termination |
| June 28, 2025 | Litman sends formal objection reserving "all rights and remedies" |
| June 30, 2025 | Formal termination of Litman's affiliation with NGM |
| July 2, 2025 | Last Payment Allocation report generated (June 2025 report, by MaryJane Harper, 8:10 AM) |
| July 4, 2025 | Litman to Heba Carter: "NGM's use of my name and the Senior Counsel designation continuously from April 2017 through June 2025" |
| ~July 17, 2025 | Litman communicates explicit litigation threat |
| July 18, 2025 | Litman's email accounts eliminated (litman@4patent.com and rlitman@nathlaw.com) -- one day after litigation threat |
| July 21, 2025 | Litman: "Any update on email accounts?" -- no response received |
| July-September 2025 | No Payment Allocation reports produced or delivered |
| September 2, 2025 | Goldberg registers for OpenGov Procurement as "Joshua Goldberg litman@4patent.com" -- proving the email address still exists |
| January 23, 2026 | Aaron Gould (Connell Foley) produces Q4 2025 summary data -- first financial information since June 2025 report |
Twenty-one consecutive monthly Payment Allocation reports exist in the record, each generated by MaryJane Harper from the PCLaw/Soluno billing system, each showing client-by-client fee collection detail and the 20% allocation to Richard Litman. These reports were produced routinely -- often within the first week of the following month.
| Month | Collected Fees | 20% Owed | Paid | Format |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2023 | $561,899 | $112,380 | $112,380 | |
| Nov 2023 | $895,230 | $179,046 | $179,046 | |
| Dec 2023 | $1,000,947 | $200,189 | $200,189 | |
| Jan 2024 | $663,183 | $132,637 | $132,637 | |
| Feb 2024 | $816,568 | $163,314 | $163,314 | |
| Mar 2024 | $780,053 | $156,011 | $156,011 | |
| Apr 2024 | $146,614 | $29,323 | $29,323 | |
| May 2024 | $226,479 | $45,296 | $45,296 | |
| Jun 2024 | $93,691 | $18,738 | $18,738 | |
| Jul 2024 | $82,346 | $16,469 | $16,469 | |
| Aug 2024 | $71,519 | $14,304 | $14,304 | |
| Sep 2024 | $89,332 | $17,866 | $17,866 | |
| Oct 2024 | $1,285,599 | $257,120 | $257,120 | |
| Nov 2024 | $745,159 | $149,032 | $149,032 | |
| Dec 2024 | $101,874 | $20,375 | $20,375 | |
| Jan 2025 | $104,215 | $20,843 | $20,834 | |
| Feb 2025 | $123,366 | $24,673 | $24,673 | |
| Mar 2025 | $446,199 | $89,240 | $89,240 | |
| Apr 2025 | $127,714 | $25,543 | $25,543 | |
| May 2025 | $142,202 | $28,440 | $0 | |
| Jun 2025 | $104,682 | $20,936 | $0 (presumed) | PDF -- LAST REPORT |
No Payment Allocation reports -- no PDFs, no spreadsheets, no client-level detail -- exist for these three months. The reports were not generated, or if generated, were not provided to Litman.
Summary-level figures were eventually produced by Goldberg's counsel (Aaron Gould, Connell Foley LLP) in January 2026, embedded in the "Litman 2025 Summary" spreadsheet:
| Month | Collected Fees | 20% Owed | Paid to Litman | Client Detail |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 2025 | $31,958.55 | $6,391.71 | Unknown | RECOVERED 2026-04-07 (see Sec. X) |
| Aug 2025 | $196,081 | $39,216 | Unknown | NONE |
| Sep 2025 | $350,385 | $70,077 | Unknown | NONE |
| Remaining Gap (Aug-Sep) | $546,466 | $109,293 | Unknown | NONE |
These figures cannot be verified. There is no client-by-client breakdown. There is no confirmation that any portion was paid to Litman.
Q4 data was produced only through counsel, six months after the fact:
| Month | Collected Fees | 20% Owed | Paid to Litman |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2025 | $628,332 | $125,666 | Unknown |
| Nov 2025 | $328,711 | $65,742 | Unknown |
| Dec 2025 | $276,098 | $55,220 | Unknown |
| Q4 Total | $1,233,141 | $246,628 | Unknown |
To assess whether the gap-period figures reported by Goldberg's counsel are reasonable, we compare against surrounding quarters:
| Period | Monthly Average (Collected Fees) | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Q2 2025 (Apr-Jun) | $124,866/month | Payment Allocation PDFs |
| Q3 2025 (Jul-Sep) | $192,808/month | Counsel production only |
| Q4 2025 (Oct-Dec) | $411,047/month | Counsel production only |
The Q3 2025 monthly average ($192,808) is plausible given the seasonal pattern: revenue typically dips in Q2-Q3 and spikes in Q4 (driven by KFU annual payment cycles). However, this pattern also makes it critical to verify whether July's unusually low figure ($31,959) reflects genuine collections or suppressed reporting.
July 2025 shows only $31,959 in collected fees -- the lowest single month in the entire dataset. For comparison:
| Month | Collected Fees |
|---|---|
| Jul 2024 | $82,346 |
| Aug 2024 | $71,519 |
| Jun 2024 | $93,691 |
| Jun 2025 | $104,682 |
| Jul 2025 | $31,959 |
The 69% drop from June to July 2025 coincides exactly with the email elimination on July 18. Several explanations are possible, none of which exonerates Goldberg:
| Period | 20% Owed | Confirmed Paid | Shortfall |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 2025 | $28,440 | $0 | $28,440 |
| Jun 2025 | $20,936 | $0 (presumed) | $20,936 |
| Jul 2025 | $6,392 | Unknown | Up to $6,392 |
| Aug 2025 | $39,216 | Unknown | Up to $39,216 |
| Sep 2025 | $70,077 | Unknown | Up to $70,077 |
| Oct 2025 | $125,666 | Unknown | Up to $125,666 |
| Nov 2025 | $65,742 | Unknown | Up to $65,742 |
| Dec 2025 | $55,220 | Unknown | Up to $55,220 |
| TOTAL | $411,689 | $0 confirmed | Up to $411,689 |
At minimum, $49,376 (May-June) is confirmed owed and unpaid. The remaining $362,313 (July-December) has no confirmed payment. The burden should be on Goldberg to prove payment was made.
The Payment Allocation reports were the only mechanism by which Litman could monitor whether he was receiving his contractual 20% share. Goldberg controlled the billing system (PCLaw/Soluno), the trust accounts, the operating accounts, and the reporting. Litman had no independent access to any of these systems. The monthly reports were his sole window into the firm's financial treatment of his originated clients.
By eliminating Litman's email accounts -- the channel through which these reports were delivered -- Goldberg simultaneously:
The Payment Allocation reports stopped at the exact moment litigation was threatened. The last report (June 2025) was generated on July 2, 2025. The email accounts were eliminated on July 18, 2025. Even if a July 2025 report was generated on August 1 (following the same monthly schedule), Litman would have had no email account to receive it.
This is not a case of reports trailing off due to administrative neglect. The reports were produced like clockwork for 21 months. They stopped the month the emails were cut.
The summary-level data that eventually appeared in the January 2026 counsel production is inadequate for several reasons:
No client-level detail. The Payment Allocation reports showed every client, every docket, every fee payment. The summary spreadsheet shows only aggregate totals. There is no way to verify whether all Litman-originated clients are included.
No payment confirmation. The reports showed both "Amount Due" and "Paid to RCL." The summary data for the gap period shows only what was owed, not what was paid.
Six-month delay. The data was produced in January 2026 -- six months after the gap began. During this period, Litman had no visibility into millions of dollars flowing through the firm on his originated clients.
Goldberg-controlled source. Every number comes from records generated by Goldberg or his staff. There has been no independent audit of any post-March 2023 financial data.
The email elimination on July 18, 2025 destroyed or rendered inaccessible two categories of evidence:
Category 1 -- Historical evidence (already documented in the Spoliation Motion): - Client correspondence bearing Litman's name - USPTO filing notifications - Internal firm communications - Financial records and invoices
Category 2 -- Prospective evidence (the subject of this memo): - Future Payment Allocation reports that would have documented the gap period - Client emails that would have shown ongoing commercial use of Litman's name - Billing communications that would have confirmed or contradicted the summary figures - Any communications between Goldberg and clients explaining the transition away from Litman's name
The second category is often overlooked. By cutting off email access on July 18, Goldberg did not merely destroy past evidence -- he ensured that Litman would have no contemporaneous record of the firm's financial activity on his clients going forward. The three-month reporting gap is a direct and foreseeable consequence of the email elimination.
Under the spoliation framework established in Voom HD Holdings LLC v. EchoStar Satellite L.L.C., 93 A.D.3d 33 (1st Dep't 2012), the jury should be permitted to infer:
That Payment Allocation reports were generated for July, August, and September 2025 -- consistent with 21 months of unbroken monthly reporting -- and were withheld from Litman.
That the July 2025 collected fees figure ($31,959) is understated -- inconsistent with every comparable month and coinciding with the email elimination.
That payments owed to Litman for July through December 2025 were not made -- consistent with the confirmed non-payment pattern beginning in May 2025.
That client-level detail for the gap period would show continued commercial exploitation of Litman's name -- consistent with the June 2025 report showing 20 active clients and 17 fee earners working on Litman-originated matters.
That the email accounts, had they remained accessible, would have contained evidence of the full scope of financial activity on Litman-originated matters during the gap period -- evidence that Goldberg had a duty to preserve and chose to destroy.
The following demands should be served immediately:
Produce all Payment Allocation reports (by client, for Richard C. Litman as originating attorney) for July 2025, August 2025, and September 2025, in the same format as the monthly reports produced for October 2023 through June 2025.
For each month from May 2025 through December 2025, produce documentation showing: - The amount of the 20% fee allocation owed to Richard C. Litman - The date on which payment was made - The method of payment (check, wire, ACH) - The check number or transaction reference - Bank records confirming receipt by Litman
Produce client-by-client fee collection summaries for July through December 2025 showing, for each Litman-originated client: - Client name and docket number - Total funds received - Collected fees - Collected disbursements (hard and soft costs) - Fee credit lawyer breakdown
Produce trust account statements for all Litman-originated client sub-matters for July through December 2025, including all deposits, disbursements, and trust-to-operating transfers.
Produce the system log or audit trail from the PCLaw/Soluno billing system showing whether Payment Allocation reports were generated for July, August, and September 2025. If reports were generated but not delivered, explain why. If reports were not generated, explain the departure from 21 months of unbroken monthly reporting.
Produce a complete log of all emails received at litman@4patent.com and rlitman@nathlaw.com from July 18, 2025 through the present, including sender, recipient, date, subject line, and attachments. This demand is consistent with the relief sought in the pending Spoliation Motion.
| Period | Collected Fees | 20% Owed |
|---|---|---|
| Jul-Sep 2025 | $578,425 | $115,685 |
| Oct-Dec 2025 | $1,233,141 | $246,628 |
| Total (Jul-Dec 2025) | $1,811,566 | $362,313 |
If July 2025 collections are adjusted to the July 2024 level ($82,346 vs. reported $31,959):
| Period | Collected Fees | 20% Owed |
|---|---|---|
| Jul 2025 (adjusted) | $82,346 | $16,469 |
| Aug 2025 | $196,081 | $39,216 |
| Sep 2025 | $350,385 | $70,077 |
| Adjusted Q3 Total | $628,812 | $125,762 |
Difference: $10,077 additional owed beyond what Goldberg reported.
The summary-level data for the gap period cannot be verified without client-level Payment Allocation reports. The known red flags -- client renumbering scheme, MSRDC trust-account-only deposits, KFU/KSU showing $0 on revenue sheets -- all suggest that the true collected fees figure is higher than reported. An independent audit may reveal additional amounts owed.
Combined with the confirmed May-June shortfall ($49,376) and Q4 2025 ($246,628), the minimum total owed from May through December 2025 is $411,689. The true figure, accounting for underreporting and unallocated clients, is likely substantially higher.
For 21 consecutive months, Goldberg produced monthly Payment Allocation reports showing every dollar collected on Litman's clients. Then, on July 18, 2025, he eliminated Litman's email accounts -- one day after a litigation threat -- and the reports stopped. For the next six months, Litman had no visibility into millions of dollars flowing through the firm on clients that bear his name. When data finally appeared, it came through Goldberg's lawyers, in summary form only, with no client detail and no payment confirmation.
The reporting blackout is itself evidence of spoliation. The Payment Allocation reports are documents that Goldberg had a duty to preserve (they were generated monthly in the ordinary course of business), that were directly relevant to the Section 51 claim (they quantify the commercial value of Litman's name), and that ceased to be produced at the exact moment litigation was threatened. The jury should be instructed that the missing reports, had they been produced, would have shown amounts owed to Litman in excess of what Goldberg has disclosed.
Sources: - 21 monthly Payment Allocation PDFs (Oct 2023 - Jun 2025) - Litman 2025 Summary spreadsheet (produced by Aaron Gould, Connell Foley LLP, Jan 23, 2026) - Q4 2025 financial reconciliation (17 attachments, via Gould) - Text messages: July 18 and July 21, 2025 (email elimination) - June 2025 Payment Allocation analysis - iCloud Photos evidence (283 photos reviewed Mar 30, 2026) - Spoliation Motion draft
Prepared April 6, 2026 -- Litman Intelligence Updated April 7, 2026 -- July 2025 Report recovered
A July 2025 Payment Allocation Report has been produced to Litman. Key metadata:
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| TOTAL | $66,335.23 |
| Fees | $31,958.55 |
| Hard costs | $33,851.68 |
| Soft costs | $525.00 |
Top 5 clients (~84% of month total):
| Client | Amount |
|---|---|
| King Saud University | $36,246.00 |
| Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research (KISR) | $7,384.55 |
| Pigeonly Inc. | $5,950.00 |
| Kuwait University | $3,662.00 |
| MSI STEM Research & Development Consortium (MSRDC) | $2,500.00 |
By practice area: - General: $65,200.23 (98.29%) - Trademark: $1,135.00 (1.71%)
Fee-credit lawyer summary: - Litman fee-credit allocation: $40,768.39 (largest allocation of any fee earner for the month)
The $31,958.55 fee figure in the recovered report matches exactly the $31,959 fee figure produced by Aaron Gould (Connell Foley) in January 2026 in the "Litman 2025 Summary" spreadsheet. This confirms two things:
The recovered report shows Litman as the largest fee-credit lawyer for July 2025 at $40,768.39. This figure is independent of -- and substantially larger than -- the $6,391.71 representing his 20% share of collected fees.
This raises an immediate discovery question: Was the $40,768.39 fee credit ever paid out, in whole or in part, to Litman? If so, when, by what method, and via what wire reference? The fee-credit allocation is an internal accounting figure that should map to a corresponding payment obligation. The wire records for July 2025 must be subpoenaed to verify whether any portion of this sum was actually transferred to Litman.
The original memo framed the gap as a spoliation problem -- documents that should have been preserved but were destroyed or rendered inaccessible by the email elimination. The recovery of the July 2025 report transforms the legal theory:
The same analysis presumptively applies to the August and September 2025 reports, which on the established monthly schedule would have been generated on or about September 11, 2025 and October 11, 2025, respectively. The discovery demand should now seek these reports specifically by name and date, not as hypothetical documents that may or may not exist.
The July 2025 figure ($31,958.55 in fees, $6,391.71 in 20% allocation) is now confirmed by primary source rather than counsel summary. The remaining unverified gap is two months (Aug-Sep 2025), not three. The total May-Dec 2025 minimum exposure of $411,689 is unchanged in dollar terms, but the evidentiary quality of the July 2025 portion has improved from "Goldberg's lawyer's spreadsheet" to "the firm's own contemporaneous billing report."
More importantly, the fee-credit allocation of $40,768.39 -- a figure not previously visible in any counsel production -- represents a substantially larger sum tied directly to Litman's name on the firm's own books for a single month. Multiplied across the unrecovered Aug-Sep months and the Q4 months, the firm's own internal records may show six-figure fee-credit allocations to Litman that were never paid.