Case: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings County) Prepared: 2026-03-27
Defendant's Third Affirmative Defense asserts that Plaintiff's claims are time-barred under CPLR 215(3) and the single publication rule of Gregoire v. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 298 N.Y. 119 (1948). Defendant contends that the 905 patents listing Plaintiff's name should be treated as a single publication, with the statute of limitations running from the issuance of US 10,683,577 B1 on June 16, 2020. This argument fails on every level. The single publication rule was never intended to apply to hundreds of separate government instruments, each requiring independent volitional acts by the defendant, and each constituting a discrete commercial use of another person's name. Defendant's own admissions and conduct confirm that these are separate publications, not a single one.
The single publication rule originated in Gregoire v. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 298 N.Y. 119 (1948), where the Court of Appeals held that a single edition of a book gives rise to one cause of action, not a separate claim for every copy sold. The rule was codified in the Uniform Single Publication Act and adopted as a matter of New York common law to prevent the absurdity of treating each copy of a newspaper, magazine, or broadcast as a separate tort. See Firth v. State of New York, 98 N.Y.2d 365, 370 (2002) ("The single publication rule was designed to limit the potential number of suits by a plaintiff and to reduce the potential chill on free speech.").
The animating logic is clear: when the same content is simultaneously distributed to many recipients through a single act of publication, justice requires that the injured party sue once, not once per copy. The rule addresses the mechanical reproduction and distribution of identical material.
United States patents share none of these characteristics. Each patent is:
A patent is not a "copy" of another patent in any sense the Gregoire court contemplated. Treating 905 distinct patents as a single publication would be like treating 905 separate books -- each with different titles, different content, and different publication dates -- as one book because the same publisher's name appears on the spine.
The single publication rule applies where a defendant performs one act of publication and the material is then mechanically reproduced and distributed. See Firth, 98 N.Y.2d at 370-71; Gregoire, 298 N.Y. at 123. Here, Defendant did not perform one act. He performed hundreds of separate, deliberate acts over a period of years.
For each patent in which Plaintiff's name appears, Defendant was required to:
Sign a Power of Attorney (PTO/AIA/82A) -- a sworn federal form designating Customer Number 37833 (Nath, Goldberg & Meyer) as the correspondence address while naming Richard C. Litman as attorney of record. Defendant personally signed 16 of these POAs on 16 different dates spanning from March 16, 2023 through January 17, 2025. Each was a separate act of pen to paper (or electronic signature to federal form).
File or cause to be filed a patent application with the USPTO, listing Plaintiff as attorney of record.
Prosecute the application through examination -- responding to office actions, paying fees, and making substantive decisions about each separate invention.
Pay the issue fee (PTOL-85B) -- a separate affirmative act for each patent, without which the patent would not issue and Plaintiff's name would not appear on the face of the published document.
None of these acts was automatic. None was the mechanical reproduction of a prior act. Each was a fresh decision by Defendant to place Plaintiff's name into a new government record. The single publication rule does not collapse hundreds of independent volitional acts into one.
Cf. Firth v. State of New York, 98 N.Y.2d 365, 372 (2002) (distinguishing between an original publication and a subsequent "modification" that constitutes a "new" publication). Here, the issue is not modification -- it is that each patent was an original publication from its inception.
Defendant's position is internally contradictory. In his Bill of Particulars response, Defendant admits that "subsequent patents that include Plaintiff's name may be considered publications." This concession is fatal to the single publication defense, because it acknowledges the very multiplicity the defense seeks to deny.
If each patent "may be considered" a publication, then by definition there are multiple publications, and the single publication rule -- which collapses multiple distributions of the same content into one cause of action -- has no application. The rule consolidates copies; it does not erase separate works.
Further, in his Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65, filed January 20, 2026), Defendant admits that Plaintiff's name appeared on patent front pages after June 15, 2020 (paragraphs 32, 72). He denies only that he "caused" it (paragraph 33) -- a denial contradicted by 16 POAs bearing his own signature, each on a separate date, each for a separate application. The admissions confirm that what occurred was not a single act with continuing effects, but a series of discrete acts producing discrete government publications.
Perhaps the most devastating evidence against the single publication defense is Defendant's own conduct in January 2025. Between January 14 and January 21, 2025, the attorney name appearing on Line 74 of newly issued NGM patents switched from "Richard C. Litman" to "Joshua B. Goldberg."
All 205 NGM patents issued after January 14, 2025 list Defendant, not Plaintiff, as attorney. (See output/POST_20250114_NGM_PATENTS.csv.)
This switchover demolishes the single publication argument in two independent ways:
First, it proves that the attorney designation on each patent's face page is a per-patent decision, not an automatic carryover from some initial configuration. If the designation were automatic or systemic -- as the single publication rule would require -- Defendant could not have changed it in one week. The fact that he did change it proves that each patent's listing was independently determined.
Second, it demonstrates consciousness of wrongdoing. Defendant changed the name only after Plaintiff filed suit. The timing shows Defendant understood that each patent bearing Plaintiff's name was a separate use of that name -- otherwise there would be nothing to "switch."
Even assuming arguendo that the single publication rule applies to individual patent documents (it does not), the rule would at most consolidate the multiple distributions of a single patent into one cause of action. It would not consolidate different patents into one cause of action, any more than it would consolidate different editions of different books.
Under the "deck of cards" theory adopted in this case, each individual patent is a separate card -- a separate government publication, with its own content, its own date, and its own statute of limitations period. Even if the internal documents within a single patent prosecution (the POA, the filing receipt, the office actions, and the issued patent) were consolidated under the single publication rule for that patent, the next patent would restart the clock.
This follows directly from the rule's own logic. In Gregoire, the Court distinguished between the original edition and a "new edition" of the same book, holding that a new edition constitutes a new publication. 298 N.Y. at 123. A fortiori, an entirely different patent -- with different content, different inventors, a different application, and a different issue date -- is a new publication, not a republication of an old one.
Defendant's statute of limitations argument fails even on its own terms. The Complaint was filed July 21, 2025. Under CPLR 215(3), applying the one-year limitations period Defendant invokes, any publication occurring on or after July 21, 2024 is timely.
Twelve patents listing Plaintiff's name were issued after July 21, 2024:
| # | Patent | Issue Date | Title (abbreviated) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12,194,434 | 2025-01-14 | Imidazolium ionic liquids (cashew nutshell oil) |
| 2 | 12,116,333 | 2024-10-15 | Ecofriendly insecticidal agent |
| 3 | 12,114,620 | 2024-10-15 | Vertical tubers planter and harvester |
| 4 | D1,046,141 | 2024-10-08 | Dental tool (rubber dam anchor) |
| 5 | 12,071,437 | 2024-08-27 | CK2 inhibitors |
| 6 | 12,065,424 | 2024-08-20 | Antimicrobial bipyridine compounds |
| 7 | 12,062,780 | 2024-08-13 | Hydrovoltaic power generation |
| 8 | 12,054,460 | 2024-08-06 | Antimicrobial acridine compound |
| 9 | 12,054,464 | 2024-08-06 | Antimicrobial triazole compound |
| 10 | 12,049,459 | 2024-07-30 | Anticancer imidazole compound |
| 11 | 12,043,608 | 2024-07-23 | Anti-inflammatory imidazole compound |
| 12 | 12,043,609 | 2024-07-23 | Antimicrobial bipyridine compounds |
Each of these 12 patents is an independent government publication issued within the one-year window. Each bears Plaintiff's name. Each was the product of a separate prosecution initiated or controlled by Defendant. No version of the single publication rule can reach backward to extinguish claims arising from publications that are indisputably timely.
Even if this Court were to entertain the single publication rule's application (which Plaintiff disputes), New York recognizes the continuing wrong doctrine where a defendant engages in a pattern of ongoing conduct. See Selkirk v. Seidman, 244 A.D.2d 210, 211 (1st Dep't 1997). Here, Defendant's use of Plaintiff's name was not a one-time event with lingering effects. It was an ongoing, repeated course of conduct spanning June 16, 2020 through January 14, 2025 -- nearly five years of active prosecution of patent applications, signing of POAs, payment of issue fees, and maintenance of Plaintiff's name on the nathlaw.com website.
The continuing wrong doctrine tolls the statute of limitations where "the wrong complained of is a series of continuing acts rather than a single act." Selkirk, 244 A.D.2d at 211. The evidence establishes exactly that: 905 separate patents, 16 separately signed POAs, 206 separately issued outgoing USPTO documents, and a website listing maintained continuously through at least June 21, 2025. This is not a single wrong; it is a pattern of deliberate, repeated appropriation.
Defendant's single publication defense is inapplicable as a matter of law and contradicted by Defendant's own admissions and conduct as a matter of fact. The single publication rule was designed for the mass reproduction of identical content. United States patents are, by definition, unique: each claims a different invention, issues on a different date, and results from a separate prosecution. Defendant's personal signature on 16 separate POAs, his payment of separate issue fees, and his deliberate switchover in January 2025 confirm that each patent was an independent publication requiring an independent volitional act. Even under the most generous reading of Defendant's position, 12 patents issued within any one-year limitations window remain actionable. The Third Affirmative Defense should be rejected.
Authorities Cited: - Gregoire v. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 298 N.Y. 119 (1948) - Firth v. State of New York, 98 N.Y.2d 365 (2002) - Selkirk v. Seidman, 244 A.D.2d 210 (1st Dep't 1997) - CPLR 215(3) - N.Y. Civil Rights Law sections 50-51