Generated: 2026-03-26 21:15 Case: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 Purpose: Demonstrate that per-patent revenue attribution is impossible, supporting "entire client relationship revenue" damages theory under NY CRL ss 51.
Of 906 patents bearing Richard Litman's name issued since June 15, 2020 (the statute of limitations cutoff):
CONCLUSION: Per-patent damages calculation is impossible for 98.0% of patents. Damages must be measured by the entire client relationship revenue stream.
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Patents with any financial link | 18 |
| Linked revenue (billed) | $142,404.00 |
| Linked Litman 20% share | $28,480.80 |
| Problem: 888 patents (98.0%) have ZERO linkable revenue |
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Period | June 15, 2020 - May 31, 2025 |
| Total funds received under Litman's name | $22,096,827.00 |
| Total collected fees | $16,175,686.00 |
| Litman's 20% share owed | $3,235,137.00 |
| Total paid to Litman | $2,730,409 † |
| Shortfall (underpayment) | $504,728 † |
| Adjusted Total Paid (cash-only) | ~$2,440,409 |
| Adjusted Shortfall (cash-only) | ~$794,728 |
† Includes $290,000 in MetLife long-term-disability offset entries that the arbitrator ruled were improper deductions by NGM. Litman did not receive that $290,000 as cash; it was a paper-offset bookkeeping construct. Adjusted figures (subtracting the $290K offset from "Paid" and adding it to the outstanding balance) are shown in the corresponding reading note. See
output/LITMAN_SUMMARY_DISABILITY_OFFSET_EXTRACT_20260416.mdandoutput/RCL_VARIANCE_RECONCILIATION_2020_ANALYSIS_20260416.mdfor the primary-ledger reconciliation.
| Year | Total Funds Received | Collected Fees |
|---|---|---|
| 2020 | $2,325,950.92 | $1,653,523.16 |
| 2021 | $2,567,833.58 | $1,821,985.10 |
| 2022 | $3,508,415.75 | $2,642,939.71 |
| 2023 | $7,390,354.18 | $5,512,122.61 |
| 2024 | $6,002,737.52 | $4,401,418.87 |
| 2025_thru_may | $1,301,535.48 | $943,696.15 |
| Client | Patents | With Docket | Linked | Family Match | Unlinked | Linked Revenue |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UNKNOWN | 888 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 888 | $0.00 |
| KFU | 13 | 13 | 13 | 0 | 0 | $142,404.00 |
| KSU | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | $0.00 |
| KISR | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $0.00 |
| KNPC | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $0.00 |
| UAEU | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $0.00 |
The following patents successfully linked to financial records:
| Patent | Docket | Assignee | Billed | Collected | Litman 20% | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12194434 | 33056.80A | KSU | $4,030.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | reconciliation_base |
| 12157086 | 33060.73U | KNPC | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | payments_exact |
| 12116333 | 33150.71A | KFU | $8,360.00 | $8,360.00 | $1,672.00 | reconciliation_exact |
| 12114620 | 32366.97U | KISR | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | payments_exact |
| D1046141 | 33056.38 | KSU | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | payments_exact |
| 12071437 | 33150.41U | KFU | $13,000.00 | $13,000.00 | $2,600.00 | reconciliation_exact |
| 12065424 | 33175.60A | KFU | $3,480.00 | $3,480.00 | $696.00 | reconciliation_exact |
| 12062780 | 33160.59U | KFU | $12,760.00 | $12,760.00 | $2,552.00 | reconciliation_exact |
| 12054460 | 33170.94A | KFU | $5,000.00 | $5,000.00 | $1,000.00 | reconciliation_exact |
| 12054464 | 33175.68A | KFU | $3,480.00 | $3,480.00 | $696.00 | reconciliation_exact |
| 12049459 | 33120.88U | KFU | $15,160.00 | $15,160.00 | $3,032.00 | reconciliation_exact |
| 12043608 | 33120.91U | KFU | $17,400.00 | $17,400.00 | $3,480.00 | reconciliation_exact |
| 12043609 | 33130.47U | KFU | $15,800.00 | $15,800.00 | $3,160.00 | reconciliation_exact |
| 11980937 | 33150.15U | KFU | $3,560.00 | $3,560.00 | $712.00 | reconciliation_exact |
| 11976365 | 33101.73U | KFU | $21,044.00 | $18,644.00 | $3,728.80 | reconciliation_exact |
| 11932607 | 33135.26U | KFU | $12,360.00 | $12,360.00 | $2,472.00 | reconciliation_exact |
| 11881807 | 33110.68U | KFU | $15,800.00 | $13,400.00 | $2,680.00 | reconciliation_exact |
| 11814309 | 33090.24U | UAEU | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | trust_exact |
888 of 906 patents in the CN-37833 attorney-record backbone (98.0%) have no docket number at all. The 905-patent dataset sourced from USPTO public records contains only patent number, title, inventors, and issue date — no internal firm billing codes. Without docket numbers, there is NO WAY to connect a specific patent to a specific dollar amount.
This is not a failure of analysis — it reflects the fundamental structure of the data. Goldberg's firm billed by docket number, but USPTO public records do not include docket numbers. The bridge between the two systems exists only for the 19 patents where we obtained USPTO IFW (Image File Wrapper) documents that contained the firm's internal docket reference.
This analysis supports the damages theory in Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025. Every dollar of revenue collected under Litman's name is attributable to the unauthorized use of that name, regardless of whether it can be traced to a specific patent.