Prepared: April 6, 2026
Document: 20240126_engagement_KFU_2024.pdf (2 pages)
Date on Letter: January 26, 2024
From: Nath, Goldberg & Meyer
To: Prof. Abdulrahman Al Lily, Vice President for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University
The letter is signed by Joshua B. Goldberg (signature visible on page 2) with the title "Co-Managing Partner" of Nath, Goldberg & Meyer. This is significant for multiple reasons:
The entire 2-page engagement letter contains zero references to Richard Litman, Richard C. Litman, "Senior Counsel," or any other acknowledgment of Litman's role. Key observations:
This is particularly damning because at the time of this letter (January 2024), Litman's name was still appearing on KFU patent front pages as attorney of record (the Litman-to-Goldberg switchover on Line 74 did not occur until January 14-21, 2025).
The letterhead and closing both use "NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER." Litman's name does not appear in the firm name, yet his name was being used as the attorney of record on all the patent work this engagement covers.
Note: The salutation reads "Dear Prof. Hany:" -- a different name from the addressee (Prof. Al Lily). This may indicate a form letter with an incomplete name substitution, or that Prof. Hany is a known contact name. Either way, it suggests a template-driven process rather than a personally crafted engagement.
"Legal services as provided by us are only undertaken upon receiving your written or verbal authorization to do so unless you are unavailable, and then only to preserve your rights as deemed necessary until such time as when we can obtain your instructions and/or authorization."
"We will provide services related to U.S. intellectual property rights. In particular, the services contemplated initially include conducting various analyses; searching, reviewing, and analyzing intellectual property rights; preparing, prosecuting, and filing patent applications on an as needed basis, developing overall project and product strategies and portfolios; and assisting you in achieving certain intellectual property related goals as they are identified by you."
"Our legal services are billed at our customary rates or according to flat fees as agreed, plus reimbursements of costs expended on your behalf. These legal services are divided into several steps. Payment is due upon receipt of our invoices."
Notable omission: Unlike the 2019 Nano-Lit engagement letter (which specifies hourly rates of $200 to $1,000), the KFU 2024 letter provides no specific rate information. It references only "customary rates or according to flat fees as agreed." This opacity is relevant to the $16.2M accounting gap.
Standard provisions regarding: - Diligent effort to keep client informed - Copies of all written materials to be provided - Timely reporting of correspondence and official actions - Documents not filed without client prior approval - Status charts available quarterly or yearly upon request
Notably absent. The 2019 Nano-Lit engagement letter includes a full arbitration clause. The KFU 2024 letter omits any arbitration provision entirely. This may reflect Goldberg's experience with the Litman arbitration and a desire to avoid binding arbitration with clients going forward.
| Feature | Nano-Lit (Aug 6, 2019) | KFU (Jan 26, 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| Pages | 6 | 2 |
| Signatory | Joshua B. Goldberg (by name) | Goldberg signature, "Co-Managing Partner" |
| Title used | None listed | Co-Managing Partner |
| Litman mentioned | No | No |
| Rate disclosure | $200-$1,000/hour | "Customary rates or flat fees as agreed" |
| Arbitration clause | Yes (AAA) | None |
| Billing detail | Extensive (tenths of hour, minimums, interest rates, deferred payment, equity provisions) | Minimal (3 sentences) |
| Princeton NJ office listed | Yes | No |
| Scope | Corporate + IP | IP only (patent prosecution) |
| Length/detail | Detailed, customized | Brief, template-like |
The KFU letter is strikingly abbreviated compared to the Nano-Lit engagement. For a client of KFU's magnitude (467+ patents, millions in fees), the 2-page letter with no rate specifics, no arbitration clause, and no billing detail is notable.
This engagement letter proves that as of January 26, 2024, Goldberg was personally entering into fee-generating attorney-client relationships with KFU -- the firm's largest client and one originated entirely by Litman. At this same time, Litman's name was appearing on every KFU patent filing as attorney of record. Goldberg was collecting fees from work marketed under Litman's professional identity without Litman's knowledge, consent, or participation.
Goldberg's BOP response claims Litman's name appeared on patents "purely as a courtesy." This engagement letter shows KFU was a revenue-generating client relationship that Goldberg was actively managing and billing. There is nothing "courtesy" about an engagement letter for paid legal services.
The letter contains no provision informing KFU that: - Richard Litman, whose name appears on their patents, is not party to this engagement - Litman has not authorized the continued use of his name - The attorney listed on their patent filings differs from the attorney actually performing the work
This absence supports the element of name use "without consent" and also raises questions about whether KFU was misled about who was actually handling their matters.
Goldberg's use of "Co-Managing Partner" is significant. In his June 15, 2021 text message to Litman, Goldberg stated: "I will continue managing the firm as I have been." The "Co-Managing" title on a formal document sent to a foreign client may have been calculated to imply a larger operation than the reality -- an operation that benefits from Litman's reputation.
KFU is responsible for 467+ patents and millions in fees (the $16.2M accounting gap includes KFU revenue). This engagement letter formalizes Goldberg's collection of those fees while Litman's name does the marketing on every patent front page and USPTO filing.
The salutation "Dear Prof. Hany:" when the letter is addressed to Prof. Abdulrahman Al Lily suggests a form letter process. This indicates Goldberg may have been sending similar engagement letters to multiple clients -- all of whom may have been attracted to the firm by Litman's name and reputation.
January 26, 2024 falls in the post-SOL-safe period (after 7/21/2024 is strongest, but post-arbitration acts from 6/14/2023 onward are powerful). The arbitration decided Litman's agreement terminated 6/15/2020, yet here is Goldberg -- seven months after that ruling -- formalizing new engagement terms with Litman's signature client while Litman's name remains plastered across every filing.
This document should be designated as a numbered exhibit. Recommended pairing with: - POA documents showing Goldberg signing powers of attorney for KFU patents listing Litman as attorney - The January 14-21, 2025 attorney name switchover evidence showing Litman's name was eventually replaced - KFU financial records showing fees collected - The "Dear Prof. Hany" error paired with the correct addressee to demonstrate template use across multiple client engagements
Source file: output/goldberg_financial_attachments/20240126_engagement_KFU_2024.pdf
Comparison file: output/goldberg_financial_attachments/20190806_Engagement letter Nano-Lit.pdf