SOL Patent Financial Analysis

Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025
Prepared March 26, 2026 (Revised with Wire Account and Trust Umbrella Findings)
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

1. Payment Detail for All 16 SOL-Window Patents (Issued After 7/21/2024)

Each patent below was issued with "Richard C. Litman" on Line 74 (attorney of record) after the statute of limitations safe date. These are fixed-fee matters, not hourly — $15,000–$20,000 per patent is the standard range, plus USPTO government fees (hard costs).

#PatentClientDocketIssue DateTotal PaidHard CostsNet FeesPayment Date(s)Invoice(s)
112,043,608KFU33120.91U7/23/2024$17,400$2,880$14,52010/9/2024408711, 420480
212,043,609KFU33130.47U7/23/2024$15,800$2,880$12,92010/24/2023, 10/9/2024406416, 420108
312,049,459KFU33120.88U7/30/2024$15,160$2,880$12,28010/9/2024408567, 408583
412,054,460KFU33170.94A8/6/2024$5,000$2,880$2,12011/8/2024420326, 420198
512,054,464KFU33175.68A8/6/2024$3,480$3,040$4406/3/2024, 11/20/2024408027, 420199
612,062,780KFU33160.59U8/13/2024$12,760$2,880$9,8802/29/2024, 11/8/2024407556, 408864
712,065,424KFU33175.60A8/20/2024$3,480$3,040$4406/20/2024, 11/20/2024407985, 420195
812,071,437KFU33150.41U8/27/2024$13,000$2,880$10,1203/8/2024, 11/8/2024407514, 421003
9D1,046,141KSU33056.3810/8/2024$1,986$1,136$85010/21/2024408923
1012,114,620KISR32366.97U10/15/2024$1,030$480$5506/24/2024408965
1112,116,333KFU33150.71A10/15/2024$8,360$2,880$5,48011/8/2024421024, 421026
1212,157,086SACGC33060.73U12/3/2024$23,490$9,005$14,4851/11/2024, 2/14/2025405181, 421553
1312,194,434KSU33056.80A1/14/2025$5,730$2,880$2,85010/21/2024420188, 408719
1412,227,748KSU33056.75U2/18/2025$17,800$2,400$15,4004/30/2024, 3/12/2025420066, 421334
1512,303,254KSU33115.39U5/20/2025$0$0$0NO PAYMENTS
1612,280,479SACGC33060.78U4/22/2025$19,960$6,160$13,8008/22/2024, 2/24/2025408925, 422138
TOTAL$164,436$48,301$116,135

Patent 12,303,254 (row 15, highlighted in red) has ZERO payments recorded anywhere in the 205,632-line payments file. This is a KSU patent invoiced at approximately $14,700 with no recorded payment — a gap that supports the understatement theory.

Fixed-Fee Context: These are not hourly matters. Each patent is billed at a flat fee by phase (search, application, prosecution, issuance). The $15,000–$20,000 range for a full utility patent is standard. Additional fees will accrue if the client pays maintenance fees through the firm in future years.

2. Where the $32 Million Came From: Client Breakdown

From NGM's own Payments file (205,632 line items, July 2023 – May 2025):

ClientTotal Payments% of All
King Faisal University (KFU)$9,958,81772.4%
King Saud University (KSU)$1,614,59911.7%
Kuwait University$497,4313.6%
United Arab Emirates University$422,8743.1%
SACGC$110,5730.8%
KISR$82,7950.6%
Sultan Qaboos University$60,8420.4%
IMSIU$53,5140.4%
Dasman Diabetes Institute$51,2160.4%
All other university/ME clients$4,8580.0%
University/ME Subtotal$12,857,51993.5%
All other clients$898,1986.5%
GRAND TOTAL (Payments file)$13,755,717100%
Key Finding: 93.5% of all revenue comes from university/Middle East clients that Richard Litman originated. KFU alone accounts for 72.4%. Every dollar was billed under "RL — Richard Litman" as originating attorney.

3. The $15 Million Discrepancy — Three Revenue Numbers, One Question

SourceDescriptionAmount
NGM Trust Report (Exhibit A, Deborah Schaefer)Total receipts across both trust accounts (t23 + t3)$32,708,669
NGM Payments FileTotal client payments applied (Jul 2023 – May 2025)$13,755,717
NGM Workup (Goldberg's accounting)"Period Billed Receipts"$16,506,605
NGM Workup"Receipts Minus Expenses"$12,012,259

What Each Number Means

$32.7M (Trust Report): Total money that flowed into trust accounts under Litman's name. This includes client retainer deposits, USPTO fee payments, foreign agent fee deposits, and invoice payments. This is the number from NGM's own system-generated bank account summary, produced by Deborah Schaefer on June 26, 2025.

$16.5M (Workup "Period Billed Receipts"): Only payments that were applied to specific invoices. Excludes trust deposits not yet applied to invoices.

$12.0M (Workup "Receipts Minus Expenses"): Billed receipts minus billed expenses (USPTO fees, foreign agent costs). This is the number Goldberg uses to calculate the 20%.

The 20% Calculation Under Each Method

MethodRevenue Base20% OwedPaidDifference
Goldberg's Workup ($12M base)$12,012,259$2,402,452$2,403,126($674) "overpaid"
Trust Report ($32.7M less expenses)$29,380,403$5,876,081$2,403,126$3,472,955 OWED
Critical Finding: Goldberg's Workup shows $0 in receipts for KFU and KSU in its Revenue sheet — yet these two clients account for $11.6 million (84%) of all payments in NGM's own Payments file. The Workup appears to use a billing-entry-based accounting method that systematically excludes the trust account activity where the vast majority of university client revenue flows.

4. Trust Account Clarification

The trust accounts are designated "RL — Richard Litman" as the responsible lawyer, but the money belongs to clients. The June 2025 Trust Listing shows:

ClientTrust Balance (June 2025)Responsible Lawyer
King Faisal University (KFU)$689,276RL
King Saud University (KSU)$264,077RL
UAEU$43,862RL
SACGC$43,621RL
KISR$14,091RL
Kuwait University$12,080RL
All other clients$144,237RL
TOTAL TRUST BALANCE$1,211,244RL

These are client funds deposited into NGM's trust accounts (Eagle Bank and Bank of America), categorized under "RL" as the originating attorney. Every trust transaction, disbursement, and transfer is processed under Litman's name. The $689K KFU balance represents retainers for pending patent applications — each of which will generate additional revenue when the work is completed.

5. What This Means for the Revenue Base Dispute

The Question for Discovery and Trial

The arbitration agreement's 20% formula — does it apply to:

Either way, the Workup's exclusion of $16.2M in documented trust receipts from its calculations — and its showing of $0 for KFU/KSU in the Revenue sheet despite $11.6M in actual payments — is evidence of either (1) a deliberately misleading accounting, or (2) an accounting method so flawed it cannot be relied upon.

6. Additional Red Flags in the Accounting

IssueDetail
Jan 2024 Payment Missing from WorkupThe master Litman Summary shows $132,637 paid in Jan 2024 (Net Due = $0). The Workup Payments sheet skips from 1/11/2024 ($22,960 — Dec 2023 residual) to 3/8/2024 ($163,314 — Feb 2024). A $132K payment simply vanished.
Sep 2024 Amount MismatchWorkup: $16,469.11. Verified Summary: $17,866.40. Neither matches.
Jan 2025 ShortfallPaid $20,834.04 vs. $20,843.04 due. Only month where payment doesn't match exactly. $9.00 short.
Missing Allocations (June 2025)KFU Inv #405667 ($9,440), KFU Inv #407698 ($11,040), Authentic Amish Inv #318064 ($1,040), Kan Cui Inv #332617 ($1,954) — all paid but not allocated to Litman's 20%. Goldberg admitted the gap: "If that is not happening, I need to figure out why."
Patent 12,303,254 — Zero PaymentsKSU patent issued 5/20/2025, invoiced ~$14,700, with absolutely no payment record in 205,632-line payments file.

7. The Third Account — Wire_8751

In addition to the two trust accounts documented in Exhibit A (Eagle Bank and Bank of America trust), NGM maintained a third account: a Bank of America wire receipt account ending in 8751 ("Wire_8751"). This account is separate from the trust accounts and was used to receive large international wire transfers from KFU, KSU, and other Middle Eastern university clients.

How Wire_8751 Operates

Wire_8751 functions as a receiving account for incoming international wire transfers. Once received, funds are transferred to other accounts — including, critically, directly to the firm's operating account (Operating_2417) rather than through the trust accounts.

FeatureDetail
Account TypeBank of America wire receipt account (ending 8751)
Primary UseReceiving international wire transfers from Middle Eastern university clients
Key ClientsKFU, KSU, and other university/ME clients
Transfer DestinationFunds transferred directly to Operating_2417
Historical LayerFreedom Bank wires totaling approximately $1.45M

The Correction Entry

A single wire transfer illustrates the concern: a $595,214 wire was recorded in the system as $594,214 — exactly $1,000 short. This corrected amount was then transferred directly to the operating account (Operating_2417). Whether this was a clerical error or something else, it demonstrates that wire receipt funds were moving to operating without passing through trust.

Critical Question: If Wire_8751 receipts bypass the trust accounts and transfer directly to operating, they may not be captured in the $32.7M trust account total from Exhibit A. This would mean the actual revenue flowing through NGM under Litman's name is higher than the $32.7M figure — and the discrepancy with Goldberg's $12M Workup is even larger than documented in Section 3 above.

8. KFU and KSU Umbrella Trust Accounts

The two largest Litman-originated clients — King Faisal University and King Saud University — each maintain a single "umbrella" trust account (docket) through which all payments flow before being distributed to individual patent matters. These umbrella accounts reveal the full scale of revenue under Litman's name.

MetricKFU (Docket 36372)KSU (Docket 35610)Combined
Total Receipts (via wire)$10,840,000$3,720,000$14,560,000
Number of Wire Transfers322456
Total Ledger Entries8713881,259
Distributes to16+ docket familiesMultiple dockets
Transfer-to-Operating Rate79–90% transferred within 1–3 business days
Current Balance$84,232$92,219$176,451

Goldberg's Direct Involvement

Although Goldberg maintains that Litman's matters were handled by staff, the ledger entries reveal his personal authorization on trust account transactions:

AccountJBG-Authorized EntriesSignificance
KFU Docket 363724Direct involvement in umbrella trust operations
KSU Docket 356107More frequent involvement in KSU trust

The $500,000 Reverse Transfer (April 10, 2024)

On April 10, 2024, a $500,000 transfer was routed through the operating account to move funds between banks. This reverse flow — from operating back through the trust pipeline — raises the question of why client trust funds were in the operating account in the first place. A legitimate inter-bank transfer of trust funds should move directly between trust accounts, not through operating.

Key Finding: The combined KFU/KSU pipeline of $14.56 million represents a massive flow of client funds under Litman's name. The 79–90% transfer-to-operating rate within 1–3 days, Goldberg's direct authorization of 11 entries, and the $500K reverse transfer all warrant close scrutiny in discovery. These umbrella accounts are the mechanism by which the majority of Litman-originated revenue is processed.

9. Potential Commingling of Trust Funds

Multiple indicators suggest that client trust funds under Litman's name may have been commingled with firm operating funds, in potential violation of Virginia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15 (Safekeeping Property).

Evidence of Commingling

IndicatorDetailSignificance
Direct Wire-to-Operating TransfersWire_8751 funds transferred directly to Operating_2417 without passing through trustClient funds entering operating without trust intermediation
Deborah Schaefer StatementSchaefer told Litman the trust accounts were being closed because the firm was "not supposed to have trust money for your own money"Admission that trust funds and firm funds were being held together
$500K Reverse Transfer$500,000 routed through operating to move between banks (April 10, 2024)Trust funds in operating account — should have transferred trust-to-trust
Rapid Trust-to-Operating Cycle79–90% of trust receipts transferred to operating within 1–3 daysTrust accounts functioning as pass-throughs rather than safekeeping

Virginia RPC 1.15 — Safekeeping Property

"A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer's possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer's own property." — Va. RPC 1.15(a)

Virginia RPC 1.15 requires that client funds be held in a separate trust account, clearly identified and distinguished from the lawyer's own property. The rule further requires that records of trust account transactions be maintained and that the lawyer promptly deliver to the client any funds the client is entitled to receive.

Discovery Implications: If Wire_8751 receipts bypassed trust and went directly to operating, if trust funds were routinely transferred to operating within days of receipt, and if the firm's own bookkeeper acknowledged that trust and operating funds were being mixed, these facts support a demand for: (1) complete Wire_8751 bank statements, (2) all inter-account transfer records, (3) operating account statements showing the source of the $500K reverse transfer, and (4) any Virginia State Bar correspondence regarding trust account compliance.
All figures derived from NGM's own system-generated reports: Payments_0723-0525_bydate.csv (205,632 lines),
Trust Listing for RCL June 2025.pdf, NGM_Litman_Workup.xlsx (137,239 revenue lines),
Exhibit A (Summary by Bank Account, produced by Deborah Schaefer, June 26, 2025),
and trust ledger analysis of KFU Docket 36372 and KSU Docket 35610.