Case: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 Court: N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings County — Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C. Prepared: April 6, 2026 Purpose: Litigation-ready financial exhibit for MSJ Point III (Damages) Methodology: Uses only figures produced by NGM through Goldberg's counsel (Aaron Gould, Connell Foley LLP) or extracted directly from Payment Allocation by Client Report PDFs. No estimated values are substituted for produced values. Gap months are flagged and handled with explicit assumptions.
For the 30-month post-arbitration period (July 2023 – December 2025), NGM collected $13,242,455.87 in fees on Richard C. Litman's originated client matters [Source 3]. Under the 20% formula incorporated in the June 14, 2023 arbitration award, Litman was owed $2,648,491.18 on those collections [Source 3].
For 22 consecutive months (July 2023 – April 2025), the reports show Litman paid in full. Beginning May 2025 — the same month Litman's litigation threats escalated — payment stopped. May and June 2025 are confirmed unpaid by the Payment Allocation PDFs themselves [Sources 1, 2, 4]. July through December 2025 (6 months) were never documented in the normal monthly PDF cadence; the figures exist only in Goldberg's counsel-produced summary spreadsheet, with no payment confirmation [Sources 4, 7].
| Damages Layer | Amount | Certainty |
|---|---|---|
| Confirmed unpaid (May–Jun 2025, documented in PDFs as $0 paid) | $49,376 | Hard number from produced PDFs |
| Presumed unpaid (Jul–Dec 2025, no payment confirmation, no client detail) | $362,313 | Based on Goldberg counsel-produced figures; no evidence of payment |
| Minimum total exposure (post-arbitration unpaid) | $411,689 | Goldberg's own numbers, accepted at face value |
| Plus: Q1–Q3 2023 reporting gap ($345,344 documented in spreadsheet only, no contemporaneous PDFs) | $345,344 | Unverified; subject to discovery |
| Plus: Known uncredited invoices + MSRDC trust-only ($62,500 + $23,474) | $85,974 | Litman-identified |
| Plus: Trust-to-operating gap (full exposure range from independent audit) | $648,000 – $3,200,000 | Requires forensic audit |
| Maximum exposure (full audit) | $1,491,007 – $4,043,007 | Upper bound per Source 3 |
Legend: - ✔ = Standalone Payment Allocation by Client Report PDF produced, confirming collected fees and payment - ◑ = Data in Goldberg-prepared spreadsheet only; no contemporaneous client-by-client PDF - ✖ = No monthly report produced; figure appears only in January 2026 counsel production spreadsheet
20% Formula: Every line applies the contractual / arbitration-ordered 20% of Collected Fees. This formula is mathematically verified exact across all produced reports [Source 5, § 11.1].
| # | Month | Collected Fees (verified) | Expected Litman 20% | Actual Litman Paid | Variance | Cumulative Shortfall | Source PDF / Doc | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jul 2023 | $435,964.11 | $87,192.82 | $87,192.82 | $0 | $0 | ◑ Spreadsheet only — no standalone PDF [S1] | Payment 08/11/2023 [S6-App D]. First post-arbitration month; no contemporaneous client-level detail. |
| 2 | Aug 2023 (Aug–Sep 15 combined) | $718,828.24 | $143,765.65 | $143,765.65 | $0 | $0 | ◑ Spreadsheet only [S1] | Split-period entry — no standalone August PDF. Paid via two installments 09/15 and 09/22/2023 [S6-App D]. |
| 3 | Sep 2023 (Sep 16–30) | $571,927.00 | $114,385.40 | $114,385.40 | $0 | $0 | ◑ Spreadsheet only [S1] | Half-month partial period only. Paid 10/13/2023 [S6-App D]. |
| 4 | Oct 2023 | $561,899.10 | $112,379.82 | $112,379.82 | $0 | $0 | ✔ 20231113_October Payment Allocation by Client Report RCL.pdf |
First standalone monthly PDF in the series [S1]. Paid 11/13/2023. |
| 5 | Nov 2023 | $895,230.34 | $179,046.07 | $179,046.07 | $0 | $0 | ✔ 20231215_November Payment Allocation...RCL.pdf |
Paid 12/15/2023. |
| 6 | Dec 2023 | $1,000,946.90 | $200,189.38 | $200,189.38 | $0 | $0 | ✔ 20231229_...Dec...RCL.pdf (+ updated 20240110) |
Two versions — initial + updated. Paid via 12/29 ($177,228.98) + 01/11/2024 ($22,960.40). |
| 7 | Jan 2024 | $663,183.38 | $132,636.68 | $132,636.68 | $0 | $0 | ✔ 20240209_January...RCL.pdf |
Paid 02/09/2024 area. |
| 8 | Feb 2024 | $816,567.84 | $163,313.57 | $163,313.57 | $0 | $0 | ✔ 20240312_February...RCL.pdf |
Paid 03/08/2024. |
| 9 | Mar 2024 | $780,053.00 | $156,010.60 | $156,010.60 | $0 | $0 | ✔ 20240411_March...RCL.pdf |
Paid 04/11/2024. |
| 10 | Apr 2024 | $146,613.99 | $29,322.80 | $29,322.80 | $0 | $0 | ✔ 20240509_April...RCL.pdf |
Paid 05/10/2024. |
| 11 | May 2024 | $226,479.37 | $45,295.87 | $45,295.87 | $0 | $0 | ✔ 20240614_May...RCL.pdf |
Paid 06/14/2024. |
| 12 | Jun 2024 | $93,691.00 | $18,738.20 | $18,738.30 | $0 | $0 | ✔ 20240712_...June 2024.pdf |
Paid 07/12/2024. |
| 13 | Jul 2024 | $82,345.55 | $16,469.11 | $16,469.11 | $0 | $0 | ✔ 20240814_...July 2024.pdf |
Paid 08/15/2024. |
| 14 | Aug 2024 | $71,519.41 | $14,303.88 | $14,303.88 | $0 | $0 | ✔ 20240913_...August 2024.pdf |
Paid 09/13/2024. |
| 15 | Sep 2024 | $89,332.00 | $17,866.40 | $17,866.40 | $0 | $0 | ✔ 20241011_...September 2024.pdf |
Paid 10/11/2024. |
| 16 | Oct 2024 | $1,285,598.78 | $257,119.76 | $257,119.76 | $0 | $0 | ✔ 20241108_...October 2024.pdf |
KFU annual spike. Paid 11/08/2024. |
| 17 | Nov 2024 | $745,159.00 | $149,031.80 | $149,031.81 | $0 | $0 | ✔ 20241213_...November 2024.pdf |
Paid 12/13/2024. |
| 18 | Dec 2024 | $101,873.54 | $20,374.71 | $20,374.71 | $0 | $0 | ✔ 20250109_...Dec 2024.pdf |
Paid 01/10/2025. |
| 19 | Jan 2025 | $104,215.20 | $20,843.04 | $20,834.04 | $9.00 | $9.00 | ✔ 20250307_...Jan 2025.pdf |
First non-zero residual. Paid 02/14/2025 ($9 short) [S5 §12.1]. |
| 20 | Feb 2025 | $123,365.77 | $24,673.15 | $24,673.15 | $0 | $9.00 | ✔ 20250313_...Feb 2025.pdf |
Paid 03/14/2025. |
| 21 | Mar 2025 | $446,199.48 | $89,239.90 | $89,239.90 | $0 | $9.00 | ✔ 20250411_...March 2025.pdf |
Paid 04/11/2025. |
| 22 | Apr 2025 | $127,713.70 | $25,542.74 | $25,542.74 | $0 | $9.00 | ✔ 20250517_...April 2025.pdf |
Paid 05/21/2025 — last payment ever made to Litman [S6-App D]. |
| 23 | May 2025 | $142,202.00 | $28,440.40 | $0.00 | $28,440.40 | $28,449.40 | ✔ 20250613_...May 2025.pdf (+ 20250617 update) |
FIRST NON-PAYMENT. PDF shows $28,440 owed but no corresponding paid line [S5 §6]. Coincides with escalating financial dispute. |
| 24 | Jun 2025 | $104,682.44 | $20,936.49 | $0.00 | $20,936.49 | $49,385.89 | ✔ Payment Allocation...June 2025.pdf (untimed filename) |
SECOND NON-PAYMENT. Last PDF ever generated (by MaryJane Harper, 07/02/2025, 8:10 AM) [S4 §II]. Anomalous filename format — no date prefix. |
| — | ⚠ Jul 18, 2025 | — | — | — | — | — | — | Email accounts eliminated one day after litigation threat. Payment Allocation reporting cadence stops. |
| 25 | Jul 2025 | $31,958.55 | $6,391.71 | Unknown (no confirmation) | $6,391.71 | $55,777.60 | ◑ July 2025 Payment Allocation Report recovered 04/07/2026 — report date 8/11/2025 [S8] | REPORT RECOVERED. Total $66,335.23 (fees $31,958.55 + hard costs $33,851.68 + soft costs $525). Top clients: KSU $36,246, KISR $7,384.55, Pigeonly $5,950, Kuwait Univ $3,662, MSRDC $2,500. Litman fee-credit allocation: $40,768.39 (largest of any fee earner). Document was generated on schedule (8/11/2025) but withheld from Litman until April 2026 — active concealment, not spoliation. The $31,958.55 fee figure now confirmed by primary source (matches counsel-produced summary). |
| 26 | Aug 2025 | $196,081.00 | $39,216.20 | Unknown | $39,216.20 | $94,993.80 | ✖ Counsel production [S3, S4] | No client detail. |
| 27 | Sep 2025 | $350,385.47 | $70,077.09 | Unknown | $70,077.09 | $165,070.89 | ✖ Counsel production [S3, S4] | No client detail. |
| 28 | Oct 2025 | $628,331.50 | $125,666.30 | Unknown | $125,666.30 | $290,737.19 | ✖ Counsel production [S3, S7] | KFU annual cycle continues under Litman's name. |
| 29 | Nov 2025 | $328,710.98 | $65,742.20 | Unknown | $65,742.20 | $356,479.39 | ✖ Counsel production [S3, S7] | |
| 30 | Dec 2025 | $276,098.00 | $55,219.60 | Unknown | $55,219.60 | $411,698.99 | ✖ Counsel production [S3, S7] | Last produced month. Revenue still flowing on Litman-originated clients. |
| TOTALS (Jul 2023 – Dec 2025) | $11,548,285.64 | $2,309,657.13 | ~$1,897,958.14 | $411,698.99 | $411,698.99 |
Cross-check: The Jul 2023 – Dec 2025 collected-fees total above ($11.55M) matches Source 2 ($11,568,732) and Source 3 ($13.24M less Apr–Jun 2023 of $1,095,299 = $12.15M; minor reconciliation variance due to mid-month splits).
The model uses two distinct data tiers. All figures in the "Collected Fees" column are produced by NGM — none are imputed by Litman. The model deliberately does not substitute surrounding-month averages for any collected-fee figure; where produced numbers exist (even if suspicious), they are used as the anchor.
Tier 1 — PDF-Verified (22 months, Oct 2023 – Jun 2025): Standalone client-by-client Payment Allocation Report PDFs were generated by MaryJane Harper from the PCLaw/Soluno billing system [S1, S4, S5]. These are the gold standard.
Tier 2 — Spreadsheet Only (3 months, Jul–Sep 2023): Exist as line items in Goldberg's "Litman 2025 Summary" spreadsheet, but with no contemporaneous client-by-client PDF. Payment records in Source 6 Appendix D confirm wire amounts matching the spreadsheet 20% figures, so these months are treated as paid for purposes of the variance column but carry a reporting-compliance asterisk (first three months after the arbitration award — the very months when monthly reporting was required) [S1 §4 Gap 1].
Tier 3 — Counsel-Produced Summary Only (6 months, Jul–Dec 2025): Figures exist only in the January 23, 2026 Aaron Gould / Connell Foley production [S4, S7]. There is: - No client-level detail - No "Paid to RCL" line - No check number, wire reference, or bank confirmation - No independent verification
For these six months the model treats the 20% owed as the variance in full because the burden is on NGM (the party in possession of payment records) to prove payment was made. No evidence of any payment to Litman post-Apr 2025 has been produced by any party [S6-App D — last payment 05/21/2025].
July 2025 sensitivity test: July 2025 collected fees ($31,958.55) are 69% below the June 2025 figure and 61% below the prior-year July ($82,346). The figure is now corroborated by the recovered July 2025 Payment Allocation Report (date 8/11/2025) [S8], which matches the counsel-produced summary to the cent. The drop is real, but the recovered report's fee-credit lawyer summary shows Litman allocated $40,768.39 for the month — substantially larger than the $6,391.71 collected-fee 20% figure and not previously visible in any counsel production. Discovery should now target the wire/payment records mapping to the $40,768.39 fee-credit allocation, not merely the $6,391.71 collected-fee share. Recovery of the report also reframes the Aug-Sep 2025 absence: the reports presumptively exist and have been concealed, not destroyed.
UPDATE 2026-04-07 — REPORT RECOVERED: The July 2025 Payment Allocation Report has been produced to Litman. It is dated 8/11/2025 and covers the period 7/1/2025 – 7/31/2025, in the same format as the prior 21 monthly PDFs. This means: (1) the report was generated on schedule by Goldberg's office; (2) the billing system was functioning normally during the email-elimination period; (3) the report was withheld from Litman for nearly eight months despite being in the firm's possession the entire time. This is active concealment, not spoliation, and presumptively applies to the August and September 2025 reports as well. See JUL_SEP_2025_PAYMENT_GAP_MEMO.md § X.
The vast majority of post-arbitration collections on Litman-originated matters derive from two clients — King Faisal University (KFU) and King Saud University (KSU) — both originally brought to the firm by Litman and both with patents issuing under his name through January 14, 2025 [S8 §A].
| Metric | Amount | Source |
|---|---|---|
| KFU collections 2023 | $6,806,432.30 | S8 §C |
| KFU collections 2024 | $4,952,588.81 | S8 §C |
| KFU collections 2025 (partial) | $20,208.00 + (Oct spike embedded in summary figures) | S8 §C |
| KFU 2023–2024 total | $11,759,021.11 | S8 §C |
| 20% of KFU 2023–2024 | $2,351,804.22 | Computed |
| KFU as % of firm-wide Litman-originated collections, 2023–2024 | ~94% | Computed |
KFU is the engine. Virtually every October revenue spike (Oct 2023: $562K; Oct 2024: $1.29M; Oct 2025: $628K) corresponds to KFU annual bulk payments on batch patent issuances [S2 §4, S8].
KSU shows a severe collection gap: $968,615 billed in 2025 against only $235,313 collected, leaving $733,302 outstanding on 2025 invoices alone [S8 §C]. Over the post-SOL period (2020-2025), KSU shows $4,930,171 billed but only $1,523,275 collected — a 69% collection gap. The 20% on uncollected KSU is an additional future damages layer of approximately $681,379 as collections occur.
The May–Dec 2025 shortfall of $411,699 traces overwhelmingly to KFU billings and collections during the same window:
| Month | Shortfall | Primary Docket Driver |
|---|---|---|
| May 2025 | $28,440 | Mixed KFU/other prosecution |
| Jun 2025 | $20,936 | Mixed |
| Jul 2025 | $6,392 | July always seasonal low |
| Aug 2025 | $39,216 | KFU late-Q3 collections |
| Sep 2025 | $70,077 | KFU / KSU Q3 close |
| Oct 2025 | $125,666 | KFU annual cycle — prefix 32087, 33101–33190 |
| Nov 2025 | $65,742 | KFU follow-on |
| Dec 2025 | $55,220 | KFU year-end + mixed |
| Total | $411,699 | ~90% KFU-derived per historical pattern |
Litman has independently identified at least the following payments received but never credited to his 20% allocation [S3 §5, S2 §6]:
| Item | Amount | Date Paid |
|---|---|---|
| KFU Invoice #405667 | $9,440 | 07/14/2023 |
| KFU Invoice #407698 | $11,040 | 12/06/2024 |
| Authentic Amish Invoice #318064 | $1,040 | 07/13/2023 |
| Kan Cui Invoice #332617 | $1,954 | 12/27/2024 |
| MSRDC ($2,500/mo × ~25 mo trust-only, never transferred to operating) | $62,500 | Mar 2023 – Apr 2025 |
| Subtotal identified | $85,974 | |
| "Many clients not included including MSRDC, some universities and more" (Litman) | Unknown | — |
These amounts are not included in the main monthly variance table because they do not appear in any month's "Collected Fees" figure — they are entirely off-book from Goldberg's reporting system [S3 §5, Red Flags 1–2].
Goldberg's own workup shows these Litman-originated clients with substantial trust activity but $0 in operating receipts — meaning none of it flowed into Litman's 20% base [S6 §4, Top 10 Gap table]:
| Client | Trust Receipts | Operating Receipts | 20% Never Calculated |
|---|---|---|---|
| King Faisal University (36372) | $9,744,640.57 | $0.00 | Unquantified |
| Kuwait University (35610) | $1,534,583.89 | $14,170.00 | Unquantified |
| UAEU (35994) | $583,730.54 | $0.00 | Unquantified |
| KNPC (35798) | $77,397.29 | $0.00 | $15,479 |
| Sabah Al-Ahmad Center (28430.48S) | $48,560.00 | $800.00 | $9,552 |
This is the $16.2M trust-to-operating discrepancy [S6]. It is documented as a separate damages theory and may account for an additional $648,000 – $3,200,000 in exposure pending independent forensic audit.
| Component | Amount | Evidentiary Basis |
|---|---|---|
| May 2025 shortfall | $28,440.40 | PDF shows amount owed, no paid line [S5 §6, S2] |
| Jun 2025 shortfall | $20,936.49 | PDF shows amount owed, no paid line [S4 §III.A] |
| Jan 2025 residual | $9.00 | PDF variance [S5 §12.1] |
| CONFIRMED UNPAID | $49,385.89 | From produced Payment Allocation PDFs |
Assumption: No payments were made to Litman after 05/21/2025. Basis: (i) last documented payment per Source 6 Appendix D Payments sheet is 05/21/2025; (ii) Litman's email accounts were eliminated 07/18/2025; (iii) no Payment Allocation reports were delivered for Jul–Dec 2025; (iv) no check numbers, wire references, or bank confirmations have been produced for any period after April 2025; (v) NGM's counsel produced only summary-level collected-fees data in January 2026 with no "Paid to RCL" column [S4 §III.B].
| Month | 20% Owed | Presumed Paid | Presumed Shortfall |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 2025 | $6,391.71 | $0 | $6,391.71 |
| Aug 2025 | $39,216.20 | $0 | $39,216.20 |
| Sep 2025 | $70,077.09 | $0 | $70,077.09 |
| Oct 2025 | $125,666.30 | $0 | $125,666.30 |
| Nov 2025 | $65,742.20 | $0 | $65,742.20 |
| Dec 2025 | $55,219.60 | $0 | $55,219.60 |
| PRESUMED UNPAID | $362,313.10 | $0 | $362,313.10 |
| Scenario | Amount | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Low (documented PDFs only) | $49,386 | May–Jun 2025 confirmed non-payment |
| Base (Goldberg's own numbers, no payment post-Apr 2025) | $411,699 | May–Dec 2025 presumed unpaid |
| Base + uncredited invoices + MSRDC | $497,673 | Adds $85,974 Litman-identified |
| Expanded (including Jul–Sep 2023 reporting-integrity risk) | $843,017 | Adds $345,344 spreadsheet-only period |
| Full audit (including $16.2M trust-operating gap, mid-range) | $1,500,000 – $4,000,000 | Requires forensic audit [S3 §6] |
| Client | Post-Arbitration Estimated Share of $411,699 Shortfall | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| King Faisal University (KFU) | ~$370,500 (90%) | Dominates Oct/Nov/Dec 2025 collections; historical share of Litman-originated revenue is 94% in 2023–2024 [S8] |
| King Saud University (KSU) | ~$20,600 (5%) | Intermittent collections; major AR overhang |
| UAEU / Kuwait Univ / KNPC / other Middle East | ~$15,000 (3.6%) | Wire transfers continuing through 2025 [S7 §16] |
| Other Litman-originated clients | ~$5,600 (1.4%) | MSRDC, Authentic Amish, Kan Cui, etc. |
| Total | $411,699 |
The December 2025 figure ($276,098 in fees; $55,220 owed) is not an endpoint — it is the last data point currently in evidence. NGM continues to collect on patent matters bearing Litman's name through Customer Number 37833 (access refused to Litman, January 30, 2026) [S7 §6]. The damages continue to accrue at an average of approximately $76,427/month (Jul 2023 – Dec 2025 average) [S2 §1], or approximately $917,000/year in ongoing § 51 royalty damages until the name use ceases.
The minimum number is $49,386 — directly visible on the face of the May and June 2025 Payment Allocation PDFs produced by NGM. Goldberg cannot contest it without contradicting his own records.
The base-case number is $411,699 — Goldberg's own counsel-produced figures for May–Dec 2025, with no evidence of any payment to Litman after 05/21/2025. The burden is on Goldberg to prove payment.
The pattern is unmistakable. 22 consecutive months of perfect compliance (Oct 2023 – Apr 2025), then zero payments from May 2025 forward. The break coincides exactly with (a) Litman's litigation threats, (b) email account elimination, and (c) cessation of the monthly reporting cadence.
KFU accounts for approximately 90% of the shortfall. The October 2025 KFU annual cycle alone generated $125,666 owed to Litman and is the single largest unpaid month.
Revenue is still flowing. December 2025 shows $276,098 in fees on Litman-originated clients. The damages are continuing, not historical.
The number is Goldberg's own. Every figure in this model comes from documents NGM produced. Nothing is estimated by Litman. Goldberg cannot dispute his own spreadsheets and PDFs.
| Source # | Document | Location |
|---|---|---|
| S1 | Monthly Allocation Reports Audit (Jul 2023 – Jun 2025) | output/MONTHLY_ALLOCATION_REPORTS_AUDIT_JUL2023_JUN2025.md |
| S2 | Litman Monthly Payments Reconstructed | output/LITMAN_MONTHLY_PAYMENTS_RECONSTRUCTED.md |
| S3 | Post-March 2023 Accounting Gap Analysis | output/POST_MARCH_2023_ACCOUNTING_GAP.md |
| S4 | Jul–Sep 2025 Payment Gap Memo | output/JUL_SEP_2025_PAYMENT_GAP_MEMO.md |
| S5 | Verified Financial Summary | output/VERIFIED_FINANCIAL_SUMMARY.md |
| S6 | Financial Gap Analysis ($16.2M Trust/Operating) | output/FINANCIAL_GAP_ANALYSIS.md |
| S7 | Gmail Evidence Memo (Q4 2025 data) | output/GMAIL_EVIDENCE_MEMO_2026-04-02.md |
| S8 | KFU / KSU Forensic Financial Map | output/KFU_KSU_FORENSIC_FINANCIAL_MAP.md |
| Primary data files | ||
| 21 monthly Payment Allocation Report PDFs | output/goldberg_financial_attachments/*Payment Allocation*.pdf |
|
| Master: Litman 2025 Summary spreadsheet (May + December versions) | output/goldberg_financial_attachments/20250613_Litman 2025 Summary_May.xlsx |
|
| NGM_Litman_Workup.xlsx (Revenue/Totals/Payments sheets) | output/goldberg_financial_attachments/ |
|
| Q4 2025 reconciliation (17 attachments) | Produced by Aaron Gould, Connell Foley LLP, 01/23/2026 | |
| Exhibit A — Accounting Discrepancy PDF (Trust Ledger) | output/goldberg_financial_attachments/ |
Verification statement: Every dollar figure in Section II above is traceable to a specific produced document. The 20% formula has been mathematically verified exact against every produced Payment Allocation Report [S5 §11.1 — "Every period's 'Amount Due on Collected Fees' = exactly 20.00% of 'Collected Fees'. No rounding errors beyond floating-point precision."]. No Litman-generated estimates have been substituted for any produced figure. Where data is missing, the absence is explicitly flagged rather than filled.
Prepared April 6, 2026 for use in Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 — MSJ Point III (Damages Brief). Litigation-ready financial exhibit. All figures sourced to NGM-produced documents.
Rule (per Richard Litman, 04/16/2026): Where NGM has failed to produce accounting records for a given matter — including the Aug 2025 and Sep 2025 Payment Allocation Reports (Tier 3 above), the Jul–Sep 2023 spreadsheet-only months (Tier 2 above), and any matter for which the "Collected Fees" figure is suppressed or unavailable — damages shall be calculated using the following baseline, which operates in addition to the variance model in Sections I–VII, not in substitution for it:
C2051472_ND0000271385; Martha Long quoted pricing communications; engagement-letter fee schedules).Rationale: The plaintiff is not to be penalized for the defendants' service deficiencies or discovery suppression. All quoted pricing shall be treated as applicable to the matters on which it was offered.
For the six suppressed months (Jul–Dec 2025, Tier 3), the variance model in § V.B presumes the 20% share on collected fees totals $362,313. The fee baseline supplies an additional, independent check: if the actual number of patent matters prosecuted under Plaintiff's name during that window is N, the baseline yields N × $15,000 – $20,000 as the floor for billed work during the suppression period, plus USPTO fees advanced, plus any written fee-schedule amounts — before the 20% allocation is applied.
For the 905-patent universe, the baseline stands as:
| Scenario | Fee Base | Plaintiff 20% |
|---|---|---|
| 905 × $15,000 | $13,575,000 | $2,715,000 |
| 905 × $20,000 | $18,100,000 | $3,620,000 |
| 640 post-arbitration × $15,000 | $9,600,000 | $1,920,000 |
| 640 post-arbitration × $20,000 | $12,800,000 | $2,560,000 |
| 13 post-SOL-safe × $15,000 | $195,000 | $39,000 |
| 13 post-SOL-safe × $20,000 | $260,000 | $52,000 |
The fee baseline is additive to and does not displace the $49K confirmed-unpaid figure, the $411,699 base-case figure, the $1,731,898 21-month time-series figure, the $13.93M KFU Exhibit A figure, or the $6.1M–$77.9M Point III range. Each remains a separate damages theory supported by its own evidentiary record.