Analysis identifies ~36,500 separate acts across four categories: (1) 905 patents + 206 USPTO docs, (2) ~24,526 client-facing emails forwarding Litman-named documents, (3) ~1,813 trademark emails, (4) ~9,050 third-party database republications. KNPC transition proves Goldberg had knowing conscious control — put his own name on 3 KNPC patents while billing them under "Richard Litman." 147-question deposition prep covers all witnesses. Full analysis → | Depo Prep →
March 27 session added: Judicial estoppel trap, "purely as a courtesy" admission, Goldberg "fraud" text (1/30/2023), PI Opposition admissions, Combination Agreement (zero name provisions), professional liability policy (Litman as "Of Counsel"), RFA self-contradictions, $16.2M accounting gap, 631/1,107 client origination, WIP report (453 RL matters, $1.29M unbilled), $32.7M trust ledger, damages range $6.1M-$77.9M. New findings below ↓
since 6/15/2020
POA Signatures
Litman's Name
Box 2 Signatures
Under Litman's Name
(Zero Consent Found)
of 1,107 Active Clients
WIP Report ($1.29M)
(Trust vs. Financial)
Attributed to Litman
after 7/21/2024
Registration No.
Key Dates — Anchor These in Every Argument
| Date | Event | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| 6/15/2020 | SOL cutoff | All 905 Litman-named patents post-this date are in scope |
| 6/14/2023 | Arbitration decision | Confirm with counsel. After this date, use is willful/knowing — Goldberg had formal notice of the dispute |
| 6/29/2023 | First Goldberg POA post-arbitration | 15 days after arbitration — App 18/215,352 (Patent 11,881,807) |
| 9/5/2023 – 3/21/2024 | 16 confirmed Goldberg POA signatures | Verified from USPTO API downloads — each is a personal act |
| 1/14/2025 – 1/21/2025 | Attorney name switchover on Line 74 | Patent 12,194,434 (Jan 14) = last Litman; Patent 12,201,650 (Jan 21) = first Goldberg. 205 NGM patents after switchover all list Goldberg. Proves ability to control and consciousness of wrongdoing. |
| 7/21/2024 | Post-SOL-safe cutoff | 12 patents with Litman on Line 74 issued after this date — strongest for SOL arguments |
| 6/21/2025 | Last confirmed Litman on nathlaw.com | Wayback capture — "RICHARD C. LITMAN, PATENT ATTORNEY" — no "Retired" |
| by 9/5/2025 | Litman removed from professionals page | Controlled removal — firm managed the identity presentation |
Judicial Estoppel Trap — Goldberg Cannot Have It Both Ways
In the arbitration, Goldberg argued that the Combination Agreement terminated on June 15, 2020 and that Litman's relationship with NGM ended on that date. In this lawsuit, Goldberg's Affirmative Defense #10 asserts that Litman consented to continued name use under that same agreement.
This argument is fully briefed in Point I — Liability Draft. Under judicial estoppel, a party who successfully maintained a position in a prior proceeding is barred from asserting an inconsistent position in a later proceeding.
"Purely as a Courtesy" Admission — Goldberg's BOP Response
This admission is devastating to the consent defense. A "courtesy" is, by definition, something done unilaterally — not something authorized by agreement. If Goldberg had contractual authorization or Litman's consent, he would have said so. Instead, he characterized it as a courtesy, confirming:
- The name use was Goldberg's decision, not Litman's authorization
- There was no contractual obligation or right to use the name
- Goldberg was aware he was using Litman's name and made a conscious choice to do so
Text Message Evidence — Goldberg's "Fraud" Concern (Jan 30, 2023)
This text, sent while Goldberg was actively filing patent applications under Litman's name, reveals consciousness of wrongdoing. Goldberg was concerned about the legality of the arrangement — specifically that maintaining someone on disability as an active attorney of record could constitute fraud. Yet he continued filing POAs with Litman's name for over a year after this text.
Additional text message finding: 51 pages of text messages (Dec 2018 - Jul 2025) contain ZERO discussion of POA filings or patent name use. The name use was entirely unilateral — never discussed, never authorized.
PI Opposition Admissions — Goldberg Authenticated POAs Under Oath
In the federal case (Litman v. Nath, 1:25-cv-04048, EDNY), Goldberg submitted Exhibit A to his opposition to preliminary injunction, which contained the very POA forms at issue. By submitting these under oath as exhibits, Goldberg has authenticated their existence, his signatures, and their contents. He cannot later deny them.
Combination Agreement Analysis — Zero Name Provisions
Full review of the Combination Agreement and 2017 Amendment confirms:
| What We Searched For | What We Found |
|---|---|
| Any clause authorizing use of Litman's personal name | NOTHING — zero provisions |
| Any clause about attorney-of-record designations | NOTHING |
| Any clause about USPTO filings or patent prosecution | NOTHING |
| Any clause about website listings or professional profiles | NOTHING |
| Transfer of "Litman Law Offices" service mark (2017 Amendment) | NGM paid $214,532 for the service mark — but no clause authorizing personal name use. Litman was not a party to this payment. |
The complete absence of name-use provisions is fatal to the consent defense. The Combination Agreement governed economic terms (revenue sharing, client origination credits). It never addressed and never authorized the use of Litman's personal name on patent filings, correspondence, or the firm's website. Full analysis: COMBINATION_AGREEMENT_ANALYSIS.md
Professional Liability Policy — Litman Listed as "Of Counsel"
This directly contradicts Tanya Harkins' May 21, 2021 statement that Litman "doesn't work here anymore." Just 46 days later, Goldberg signed an insurance policy listing Litman as active Of Counsel. This proves:
- NGM was holding Litman out as affiliated to an insurance carrier — a commercial representation
- Goldberg personally signed the form — another personal act attributable to him
- The firm was collecting malpractice coverage on work attributed to Litman, confirming the name use had ongoing commercial significance
RFA Responses — Self-Contradictions
Goldberg's Requests for Admission responses contain multiple self-contradictions when compared to his Answer and discovery responses:
| RFA Position | Contradicted By |
|---|---|
| Admits name appeared on patents and website | Denies he "caused" it (Answer ¶33) — but signed 16 POAs |
| Claims contractual authorization | Combination Agreement contains zero name-use provisions |
| Asserts consent defense | Own BOP response says use was "purely as a courtesy" (unilateral, not consented) |
| Claims agreement was valid basis for name use | Argued in arbitration that agreement terminated on 6/15/2020 |
Full admissions matrix across all 6 sources (Answer, Discovery Responses, employee emails, Goldberg emails, Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment, RFAs): ELEMENT_BY_ELEMENT_ADMISSIONS_MATRIX.md
$16.2M Accounting Gap and Financial Evidence
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Total revenue under Litman's name (2020-2025) | $18.53M | Goldberg's own Excel spreadsheets |
| Trust ledger total (all Litman dockets) | $32.7M | NGM Trust Ledger (534 pages) |
| Financial workup total | $16.5M | Goldberg's financial workup |
| KFU trust account alone | $10.7M | Trust Ledger account 36372 |
| Entries tagged "JBG" (Goldberg personal control) | 95 transactions | Trust ledger annotations |
| Billed in 2025 alone (under Litman's name) | $1.07M | Goldberg financial records |
| Litman-originated clients | 631 of 1,107 (57%) | NGM file inventory |
| RL matters on WIP report | 453 matters / $1.29M unbilled | Firm WIP report |
The $16.2M gap and the "JBGverbal" annotations (Goldberg personally authorizing inter-docket fund transfers) prove personal control over Litman-attributed revenue. The trust ledger shows continued commercial activity under Litman's name through late 2024. Interactive Damages Calculator → | Litigation Analytics →
Monthly Trust Activity — Post-Lawsuit Commercial Activity Continues
KFU trust account activity continued through November 2024 — months after the lawsuit was filed (July 2025 complaint). The trust ledger shows 871 transactions across 668 unique sub-dockets, with receipts flowing in and disbursements going out under matters attributed to Litman throughout the entire period.
Goldberg's Discovery Response — Stonewalling Documented
Goldberg responded to 7 document requests by producing only insurance documents and a SharePoint link. No billing records, no financial records, no email communications, no internal file management records. This stonewalling is documented and available for a motion to compel if needed.
Key Email: April 30, 2021 — Litman Explicitly Reserved Name Rights
Goldberg received and acknowledged this email. It directly proves that Litman explicitly reserved his personal name rights in writing — and that Goldberg had actual notice of this reservation. Every POA filed after this date (all 16 of them) was filed with knowledge that Litman did not consent to personal name use. Additional key emails: May 1, 2023 ("not agreed to by me at anytime"), June 24, 2025 ("There is no basis without my consent that I should still be listed on USPTO filings"), July 18, 2023 ("I did not agree to terminate my affiliation" + demands client notification).
Attorney Name Switchover (Jan 14-21, 2025) — Consciousness of Wrongdoing
Between January 14 and January 21, 2025, Litman's name was replaced by Goldberg's on patent front pages (Line 74):
| Date | Patent | Line 74 |
|---|---|---|
| January 14, 2025 | US 12,194,434 | Richard C. Litman (LAST Litman patent) |
| January 21, 2025 | US 12,201,650 | Joshua B. Goldberg (FIRST Goldberg patent) |
After the switchover, 205 NGM patents were granted — all listing Goldberg instead of Litman. This proves: (1) Goldberg had the ability to control whose name appeared, (2) the choice to use Litman's name was a deliberate decision that could have been changed at any time, and (3) the switchover timing (shortly after Litman's objections intensified) demonstrates consciousness of wrongdoing. Full analysis: output/POST_20250114_NGM_PATENTS.csv
Bombshell #1 — Dvorkin: "Solely because Richard Litman works with you" (Sept 2025)
Legal significance: Proves the "trade or advertising" element of § 51. Litman's name was the commercial draw. Combined with Bennington (July 2025: "a customer of Richard Litman's from way back... I thought the world of Mr. Litman") and Albannai (Aug 2025: "East or west Richard is the best, you are unplaceable to me"), this establishes a pattern of three independent clients in three consecutive months all seeking NGM because of Litman's name. Cross-references: Bennington and Albannai previously identified via iCloud Photos (see iCloud Evidence Memo); Dvorkin is new.
Bombshell #2 — June 10, 2025: Written Demand to Remove from Website
Legal significance: Destroys any remaining implied consent argument. After an explicit written demand to cease, continued display of the name is willful misappropriation. This is the strongest evidence of non-consent in the record — it is contemporaneous, written, unambiguous, and ignored. Cross-references: Website screenshots (nathlaw_richard_litman_profile_2025-06-21.png); by Sept 5, 2025 Litman was removed entirely.
Bombshell #3 — Goldberg Using litman@4patent.com for OpenGov Procurement (Sept 2025)
Legal significance: This goes beyond using Litman's name on patents — Goldberg literally operated under Litman's email identity to engage with government procurement systems. This is identity misappropriation in its most direct form. The account was activated after Litman's email access was terminated (July 18, 2025), meaning Goldberg had control of the litman@4patent.com address and used it for his own business purposes.
Bombshell #4 — June 26, 2025: "Seven Figures Owed" + Litigation Trigger
Email from June 26, 2025 establishes that Litman stated "seven figures owed" — quantifying the financial harm from Goldberg's unauthorized use of his name to generate revenue. This email is the litigation trigger: less than a month later (July 17, 2025), Litman threatened litigation, and the very next day (July 18, 2025), Goldberg eliminated Litman's email accounts in retaliation.
Legal significance: Establishes the timeline from financial demand to retaliation. Supports both damages quantification and willfulness/punitive damages.
Bombshell #5 — Complete Financial Records Through December 2025
Gmail analysis recovered complete monthly financial documentation through December 2025. Key finding: $246K owed in Q4 2025 alone. Payments stopped in May 2025. Trust account records show continued revenue generation using Litman-originated clients while payments to Litman ceased.
Legal significance: Extends the financial harm timeline 9 months beyond the previous cutoff. Combined with $32.7M total trust receipts and $16.2M accounting gap, this strengthens the damages case substantially. Cross-references: Verified Financials, KFU/KSU Reconciliation.
Bombshell #6 — Deposition Default (February 24, 2026)
Goldberg failed to appear for his scheduled deposition on February 24, 2026. Depositions are due by June 2, 2026 per the Scheduling Order (Doc #70). This establishes a pattern of non-cooperation that supports a motion to compel and potential adverse inference.
Bombshells #7-8 and Strong Supporting Evidence
| # | Finding | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | Three clients drawn by name in three consecutive months (July, Aug, Sept 2025) | Pattern evidence — not isolated incident but systematic commercial exploitation of Litman's reputation |
| 8 | Email retaliation timeline: demand (June 10) → "seven figures" (June 26) → litigation threat (July 17) → email elimination (July 18) | 28-day chain from written demand to spoliation; consciousness of guilt |
| S1 | Trust account activity continued through December 2025 using Litman-originated client numbers | Revenue generation under Litman's name persisted after litigation filed |
| S2 | Martha Long solicitation emails: "I have worked with Richard Litman for 27 years" | Active marketing using Litman's name to attract new clients |
| S3 | Professional liability insurance: Goldberg listed Litman as "Of Counsel" (7/6/2021) | Formal representation to insurance carrier that Litman was affiliated |
| S4 | Client renumbering scheme: Litman clients assigned alternate NGM numbers to bypass revenue allocation | Deliberate financial concealment |
| S5 | Dakota AG (Oct 2024): client identifies firm as "The Litman Law Office" | Clients associate firm with Litman's name — proves goodwill value |
| S6 | Goldberg confirms "managing the firm as I have been" (June 15, 2021) | Admits personal control over firm operations including name use |
Deposition Questions Arising from Gmail Evidence
| # | Element | Status | Strength | Key Evidence | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Use of plaintiff's name | PROVEN | Hard evidence | 905 patents (Line 74); nathlaw.com profile; assignment cover sheets naming "RICHARD C. LITMAN NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER" | None critical — facts are government records |
| 2 | For purposes of trade | PROVEN | Strong inference | $18.53M collected under Litman's name (2020-2025); $10.7M KFU trust alone; $1.07M billed in 2025; 631 of 1,107 clients Litman-originated; 453 RL matters on WIP report ($1.29M unbilled); website advertising | Full billing records would close remaining gap |
| 3 | Without consent | PROVEN | Solid post-arbitration | 16 Goldberg POAs post-arbitration; April 30, 2021 email ("does not include the right to use my name"); Combination Agreement has zero name provisions; "purely as a courtesy" admission; 276K emails searched — zero consent found; judicial estoppel (Goldberg argued agreement terminated 6/15/2020) | Litman non-consent declaration still recommended |
| 4 | Defendant's benefit | PROVEN | Strong inference | $18.53M collected; $32.7M trust ledger; professional liability policy listing Litman as "Of Counsel" (Goldberg signed 7/6/2021); "JBGverbal" trust transfers proving personal revenue control; KFU client retention | Goldberg K-1 distributions still sought in discovery |
| + | Personal liability (Turane) | PROVEN | Hard evidence | 16 personal POA signatures by Goldberg (Reg. 44126) — not firm action, literal personal signature on federal government forms | None — this is the cleanest element in the case |
Addressing the Defense Argument (Dec. 5, 2025 — Judge Maslow)
| Defense Claim | Our Answer |
|---|---|
| "The website is the firm's website, not Goldberg's" | Correct — and website is supporting evidence. Primary evidence is the personally-signed POA forms, which are individual acts requiring Goldberg's personal registration number (44126). |
| "Patent filings were made by the firm, not Goldberg personally" | False as to these specific documents. PTO/AIA/82A requires the signatory's personal USPTO registration number. Goldberg signed his name and wrote Reg. 44126. That is an individual act by definition. |
| "Goldberg cannot be liable as managing partner alone" | Agreed — and we do not argue managing-partner liability. We argue personal signature liability. See Turane v. MGN, LLC and NY LLC Law § 609. |
Key Admissions — What Goldberg Has Conceded
Why this is devastating: Goldberg has admitted Element 1 of the §§ 50-51 claim (use of name) in his own verified pleading. The remaining contested elements are "for trade" (yes — NGM billed clients for prosecution), "without consent" (yes — no written consent exists; Goldberg's own Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment says Litman owns his name), and "defendant's benefit" (yes — prosecution fees). Each is supported by documentary evidence.
| Element | Status After Answer | Our Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Use of name | ADMITTED by Goldberg (¶32, ¶72) | 905 patents; website captures; assignment cover sheets |
| For trade | Not admitted — but provable | NGM billed clients for prosecution under Litman's name. KFU = world's #1 filer 2024. Billing records sought in discovery. |
| Without consent | Goldberg asserts consent (Defense #10) | No written consent — April 30, 2021 email explicitly reserves name rights; Combination Agreement has zero name provisions; "purely as a courtesy" admission; Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821) says Litman owns his name; 276K emails searched with zero consent found; judicial estoppel blocks reliance on terminated agreement. |
| Defendant's benefit | Not admitted — but provable | $18.53M collected; $32.7M trust ledger; $10.7M KFU trust; professional liability policy signed by Goldberg listing Litman as "Of Counsel"; 95 "JBGverbal" trust entries; $1.07M billed in 2025. |
Paragraph-by-Paragraph: What He Admitted, What He Denied, Our Proof
| Para | Complaint Allegation | Answer | Our Proof |
|---|---|---|---|
| ¶32 | Post-departure use of Litman's name | ADMITS name on patents and website after 6/15/2020 | 905 patents; website captures |
| ¶33 | "Goldberg caused Plaintiff to be listed as attorney of record on hundreds of U.S. patents" | DENIES | 16 POAs personally signed by Goldberg (Reg. 44126); 18 PTOL-85B forms; 22 Filing Receipts; 9 Non-Final + 4 Final Office Actions; Assignment cover sheets signed by Goldberg; POAs authenticated under oath by Goldberg in federal Exhibit A |
| ¶38 | Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment — Goldberg's own statement that Litman owns his name | Denied or qualified | Assignment Center record — Reel 007281, Frame 0821 — publicly recorded document |
| ¶39 | Litman's physical disability | ADMITS | Defeats waiver/laches defense (#5) |
| ¶72 | Count V: used name in commerce without consent | ADMITS name on patents and website | All patent evidence; POA signatures; IFEE submissions |
The Key Factual Issue for Trial: ¶33 — "Goldberg Caused It"
| Document Type | Count | Signatory | How It Proves Causation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Powers of Attorney (PTO/AIA/82A) | 16 | Goldberg (Reg. 44126) | Each POA appointed CN-37833 as attorney of record — CN-37833 carries Litman's name. Goldberg's signature is the initiating act that cascades through all subsequent documents. |
| PTOL-85B Issue Fee Transmittals | 18 | Lafave (Reg. 71013) | Lafave typed "Richard C. Litman" in Box 2. Form instruction: "If no name is listed, no name will be printed." Zero exceptions. |
| Filing Receipts | 22 | USPTO (outgoing) | Government's own confirmation that Litman is attorney of record — triggered by Goldberg's POA filing |
| Non-Final Office Actions | 9 | USPTO (outgoing) | Rejections addressed to "Richard C. Litman" — substantive prosecution conducted under his name without his knowledge |
| Final Office Actions | 4 | USPTO (outgoing) | Final rejections addressed to "Richard C. Litman" — NGM responded under his name |
| Assignment Cover Sheets | 3+ | Goldberg | Goldberg signed cover sheets listing "RICHARD C. LITMAN / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer" as correspondent — using his own email while printing Litman's name |
Total documented acts across 21 mapped applications: 206 individual government documents bearing Litman's name. The full 905-patent set yields an estimated ~36,500 separate acts across all four categories of use.
Goldberg's 10 Affirmative Defenses — Counter-Evidence Map
| Defense | Goldberg's Argument | Our Counter-Evidence | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1-2: SOL / CPLR 215(3) | Claims are time-barred under one-year SOL | Each patent is a new publication. 12 patents issued after 7/21/2024 (within 1 year of filing). 206 USPTO documents in prosecution files — each is a separate publication. Not one act per patent, but 10-26 per application. | ADDRESSED |
| #3: First Publication (Nussenzweig) | SOL accrues on first publication only | Each issued patent has a unique number, date, and content. Each Filing Receipt, Office Action, NOA is a separate mailing. Website updated multiple times. These are new government documents, not republications. | ADDRESSED |
| #4: Failure to state a claim | No cause of action | Judge Maslow denied MTD as to Count V on 12/05/2025 (Doc #60). Already adjudicated. | REJECTED BY COURT |
| #5: Waiver / Estoppel / Laches / Unclean Hands | Litman waited too long or consented by inaction | Litman physically disabled as of June 2020 (Goldberg admits at ¶39). Litman filed arbitration, then this lawsuit. No unreasonable delay. | ADDRESSED |
| #6-7: Res Judicata / Collateral Estoppel | Arbitrator already decided | Arbitration addressed employment terms and revenue share, NOT §§ 50-51 identity misappropriation. Arbitrator never ruled on patent name use. Judge Maslow already rejected this on 12/05/2025. | REJECTED BY COURT |
| #8: Failure to Mitigate | Litman should have stopped the name use | Litman had no access to CN-37833 or USPTO filings. Only NGM controlled the customer number. Cannot mitigate what you cannot access. | ADDRESSED |
| #9: No Damages | Litman was not harmed | 905 patents permanently bear his name for work he never reviewed. Professional liability exposure for up to 20 years per patent. Website displayed his name through June 2025. | ADDRESSED |
| #10: Implied/Express Consent | Litman authorized the use | No written consent exists. Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821), recorded by Goldberg himself, states "Plaintiff owns his name, signature, voice, image, photograph or likeness." 16 POAs signed post-arbitration — after formal notice of dispute. | CONTRADICTED BY GOLDBERG'S OWN FILING |
Case Deadlines — Scheduling Order (Doc #70)
Case reassigned to Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C. (from Maslow) | Open Scheduling Order
| Deadline | Date | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Insurance information exchange | 03/19/2026 | DONE |
| BOP demands served | 03/05/2026 | DONE |
| Goldberg's BOP demand response | ~03/25/2026 | DONE |
| Bills of Particulars due | 04/02/2026 | DUE IN 6 DAYS |
| Depositions complete | 06/02/2026 | PENDING |
| Compliance conference | 09/22/2026 | CCP Room 282, 9:30am |
| Note of Issue | 02/05/2027 | PENDING |
| Summary judgment | 60 days after Note of Issue | — |
The Six-Stage Chain — Each Stage Has a Government Document
| Stage | Document | Code | Direction | What It Shows | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ① | Power of Attorney (PTO/AIA/82A) | PA.. |
INCOMING — Goldberg → USPTO | Goldberg personally designates CN-37833; names Litman as attorney of record | ✅ DOWNLOADED — evidence/poa_pdfs/ |
| ② | Filing Receipt | APP.FILE.REC |
OUTGOING — USPTO → CN-37833/NGM | Government confirms: "Attorney: Richard C. Litman" — addressed to NGM at CN-37833 | ✅ DOWNLOADED — evidence/mechanism_docs/ |
| ③ | Office Actions (CTNF / CTFR) | CTNF / CTFR |
OUTGOING — USPTO → CN-37833/NGM | USPTO rejections sent to "Litman" at NGM — NGM responds as Litman's firm, conducting active prosecution under his name | ✅ DOWNLOADED — evidence/mechanism_docs/ |
| ④ | Notice of Allowance (PTOL-85) | NOA |
OUTGOING — USPTO → CN-37833/NGM | Line 74 name pre-set: "Richard C. Litman / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer" — sent to NGM | ✅ DOWNLOADED — evidence/mechanism_docs/ |
| ⑤ | Issue Fee Transmittal (PTOL-85B) | IFEE |
INCOMING — Lafave → USPTO | Lafave types "Richard C. Litman" in Box 2; form states "If no name is listed, no name will be printed" | ✅ DOWNLOADED — evidence/ifw_ifee/ |
| ⑥ | Issued Patent (Line 74) | Patent | PUBLIC RECORD — permanent | "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer; Richard C. Litman" — permanent government record | ✅ DOWNLOADED — evidence/patents/ |
Assignments — Parallel Channel (Two Additional Government Records)
In addition to the prosecution chain, Goldberg signed USPTO assignment cover sheets that listed Litman's name in the correspondent block — creating additional permanent public records.
| Application | Date | Goldberg Signature | Correspondent Block | Reel/Frame | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18/392,663 | Dec. 21, 2023 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ — jgoldberg@nathlaw.com | RICHARD C. LITMAN / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | 065933/0139 | ✅ Screenshot — need PDF from Assignment Center |
| 18/383,448 | Oct. 29, 2023 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ — jgoldberg@nathlaw.com | RICHARD C. LITMAN / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | 065379/0084 | ✅ Screenshot — need PDF from Assignment Center |
Note: App 18/392,663 — Goldberg signed both the POA and the assignment cover sheet on Dec. 21, 2023. Same person, same application, same day, two separate federal documents both bearing Litman's name.
Full memo: Mechanism of Liability Memo
Signatory: /Joshua B. Goldberg/ — Reg. 44126 — CN-37833 appointed
Issued patent US 12,043,608 B1 (July 23, 2024) — Line 74: "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer; Richard C. Litman"
Assignee: King Faisal University
Document 2: PTO/AIA/15 Application Transmittal — /Joshua B. Goldberg/ Reg. 44126 — Assignee: King Faisal University
Assignment Center: Reel 065379 / Frame 0084 (recorded Oct 29, 2023) — Correspondent: "RICHARD C. LITMAN NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER" | jgoldberg@nathlaw.com
Issued patent US 11,952,371 B1 (April 9, 2024) — Line 74: Richard C. Litman
Note: The 82A image is the clearest Goldberg signature in the entire evidence set — perfectly legible, no artifacts. Use as demonstrative at trial.
Issued patent US 12,116,333 B1 (Oct. 15, 2024) — Line 74: "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer; Richard C. Litman"
Document 2: PTO/AIA/15 Application Transmittal — /Joshua B. Goldberg/ Reg. 44126 — Docket 33150.15U — Assignee: King Faisal University — CN 37833
Assignment Center: Reel 065933 / Frame 0139
Issued patent US 11,980,937 B1 (May 14, 2024) — Line 74: "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer; Richard C. Litman"
On a single day, Goldberg personally executed two separate federal documents for the same KFU application while Litman's name remained in the correspondence block and on the eventual patent.
All signed /Joshua B. Goldberg/ Reg. 44126 — all appointed CN-37833 — all issued with Litman on Line 74
This is not an isolated incident. It is a sustained pattern spanning a full year.
output/POA_GOLDBERG_SIGNATURE_TABLE.md — full table with individual PDF links
output/POA_GOLDBERG_SIGNATURE_TABLE.md — OCR'd from USPTO API downloads (PTO/AIA/82A PDFs). All PDFs in evidence/poa_pdfs/.Demand 1 — NGM Billing Records (HIGHEST PRIORITY)
All time sheets, invoices, billing statements, and payment records for patent prosecution matters where Richard C. Litman appeared as attorney of record or correspondent, from June 15, 2020 through the present, for matters assigned to King Faisal University, King Saud University, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Kuwait National Petroleum Company, Kuwait University, United Arab Emirates University, and Dasman Diabetes Institute.
Demand 2 — Consent and Name-Use Agreements
All agreements, contracts, arrangements, or communications between Richard C. Litman and Nath, Goldberg & Meyer (or any officer/member/employee thereof) regarding: (a) Litman's consent to continued use of his name on patent filings after his departure; (b) any of-counsel, consulting, or licensing arrangement; (c) any transition arrangement regarding institutional clients.
Demand 3 — Goldberg K-1 Distributions / LLC Operating Agreement
NGM LLC operating agreement and all K-1 forms and profit distribution records for Joshua B. Goldberg from 2020 through 2025.
Demand 4 — Customer Number 37833 Login and Management Records
All records identifying who had login credentials, administrative control, or access to USPTO Customer Number 37833 from 2020 through 2025, including any change-of-address, change-of-practitioners, or account modification records.
Demand 5 — Website Content Management Records
All communications, instructions, or decisions regarding the nathlaw.com profile page for Richard C. Litman, including when and why the page was removed from the professionals directory (between June 21, 2025 and September 5, 2025).
Demand 6 — KFU/Institutional Client Communications
All communications between NGM and King Faisal University (or any institutional assignee) that reference Richard C. Litman, his departure, his continued role (or lack thereof), or any transition of representation.
output/WEBSITE_EVIDENCE_CAPTURE_GUIDE.md.(Litman).ATTY. AND (Goldberg).ATTY. AND @pd>=20250615 in USPTO Patent Public Search. The Litman-only search returned 0 results; overlap query not yet run. Any results would extend the damages period.evidence/ifw_ifee/ and record submitter names. If Goldberg appears as submitter on Issue Fee payments for Litman-named patents, that is additional evidence of personal action.output/KFU_2024_CONFIRMATION_GUIDE.md.What Box 2 Is — and Why It Matters
The PTOL-85 Part B ("Part B — Fee(s) Transmittal") is submitted to pay the issue fee and trigger patent issuance. It contains Box 2, which the USPTO form describes verbatim:
Box 2 is not automated. If left blank, no attorney name appears on Line 74. Someone must affirmatively type a name — and what they type is printed verbatim on the face of the issued patent. This is the direct proximate mechanism by which Litman's name ends up on Line 74.
The Complete Two-Act Structure of Each Misappropriation
Signs PTO/AIA/82A Power of Attorney Transmittal
→ Appoints CN-37833 as attorney of record
→ Prosecution begins with Litman's name in correspondence block
Post-arbitration: 12 confirmed personal signatures, Mar 2023 – Mar 2024
Signs PTOL-85 Part B Issue Fee Transmittal
→ Writes "Richard C. Litman" in Box 2
→ USPTO prints that name on Line 74 of the issued patent
Post-arbitration: 18 confirmed personal signatures, Dec 2023 – Jun 2024 (169 days, zero exceptions)
Both acts are personal government-form signatures. Neither is a firm-level act attributable only to NGM as an entity. This was a two-person coordinated practice spanning the full prosecution lifecycle: Goldberg opened the prosecution file, Lafave closed it — both writing Litman's name on federal forms throughout.
Three Things This Finding Does to the Defense
| Defense Argument | Box 2 Response |
|---|---|
| "Litman's name appeared automatically through USPTO processes" | False. The PTOL-85 Part B states in plain English: "If no name is listed, no name will be printed." Lafave typed Litman's name. It was not automatic. |
| "This was a single person's error, not a pattern" | False. Lafave signed 18 forms with Litman's name across 169 days (Dec 2023 - Jun 2024), across 3+ different institutional clients (KFU, KSU, KISR). Goldberg signed 16 POA forms across 22 months. Two people, 34 total personal acts, sustained coordinated pattern. |
| "The firm did it, not any individual" | False as to both individuals. Goldberg's Reg. 44126 is on the 82A. Lafave's Reg. 71013 is on the PTOL-85B. Both are personal acts under Turane. |
Third Evidence Category: USPTO Issue Notification (IR103) Addressed to "Richard C. Litman"
Beyond the incoming POA forms (Act 1) and PTOL-85B forms (Act 2), a third category of government document now confirms Litman's name in the prosecution record:
Type: Outgoing USPTO administrative notice (document code: ISSUE.NTF)
Addressed to: "Richard C. Litman / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer / 112 S. West Street / Alexandria, VA 22314"
Notification date: 04/24/2024 — Issue Date: 05/14/2024
File:
evidence/ifw_ifee/ISSUE_NTF_11980937_18392663.pdf
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 direct response to what NGM configured and maintained. Three government-document categories now converge on the same conclusion:
| # | Document Type | Direction | Who Caused It | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PTO/AIA/82A Power of Attorney | Incoming (NGM → USPTO) | Goldberg signed, appointed CN-37833 | evidence/poa_pdfs/ |
| 2 | PTOL-85 Part B Issue Fee Transmittal | Incoming (NGM → USPTO) | Lafave signed, typed Litman in Box 2 | evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_*.pdf |
| 3 | Issue Notification (IR103) | Outgoing (USPTO → Litman/NGM) | USPTO addressed to Litman because NGM maintained CN-37833 | evidence/ifw_ifee/ISSUE_NTF_*.pdf |
Action Items for Counsel
- Consider adding Lafave as a named defendant — He has independent personal liability on 18 post-arbitration PTOL-85 Part B filings, including App 18/379,906 where he alone executed both acts (POA + PTOL-85B). Adding him dramatically increases settlement pressure.
- Add Box 2 argument to the opposition to summary judgment — It directly forecloses the "automatic/clerical" defense with the form's own language.
- Depose Lafave — Ask who directed him to put Litman's name in Box 2. The answer implicates either Goldberg (if directed) or reveals firm policy. For App 18/379,906, he cannot deflect to Goldberg — he signed both forms himself.
- Display these forms as demonstratives at trial — The PTOL-85B is clean, readable, and self-explanatory. Box 2 with "Richard C. Litman" next to "If no name is listed, no name will be printed" is a powerful visual for a jury.
- Include the Issue Notification (IR103) as a third government-document category — see
evidence/ifw_ifee/ISSUE_NTF_11980937_18392663.pdf— the USPTO itself was formally addressing patent issuance notices to "Richard C. Litman / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer" as of April 2024.
output/PTOL85_LAFAVE_FINDINGS.mdDamages Tiers
| Tier | Range | Basis | What It Covers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | $6.1M - $11.1M | Per-patent prosecution fees + reasonable royalty | 905 patents at documented prosecution rates; 20% fair market royalty on revenue attributable to Litman-named matters; actual damages from lost licensing opportunity |
| Moderate | $18.5M - $29.6M | "Entire relationship" revenue | $18.53M collected under Litman's name (from Goldberg's own spreadsheets) + exemplary/punitive damages for knowing post-arbitration use. Uncle's preferred theory: all revenue from client relationship is attributable. Supported by 2% patent-to-revenue linkage rate proving commingling. |
| Comprehensive | $37M - $77.9M | Full trust ledger + multipliers | $32.7M trust ledger (all Litman dockets) + statutory exemplary damages + attorney fees. Accounts for $16.2M gap, punitive multiplier for knowing/willful post-arbitration conduct, professional reputation harm. |
Key Damages Methodology Points
- Per-patent linkage fails (by design): Only 2% of 905 patents can be linked to specific revenue — because KFU sent bulk wires and Goldberg personally allocated them ("JBGverbal" annotations). The commingling itself is evidence of Goldberg's control.
- "Entire relationship" theory is primary: Since per-patent revenue tracing is impossible due to Goldberg's commingling, all revenue from the client relationship is attributable as damages. This is supported by the $10.7M KFU trust ledger (one account alone).
- Exemplary damages are automatic: NY Civil Rights Law § 51 provides for exemplary damages when the use is "knowing." Post-arbitration POA filings (16 of them, starting 15 days after arbitration) are knowing by definition.
- Attorney fees available: § 51 authorizes reasonable attorney fees in addition to damages.
- Professional reputation harm: 905 patents permanently bear Litman's name for work he never reviewed, creating professional liability exposure for up to 20 years per patent.
Interactive modeling tool: Damages Calculator (adjustable client toggles, royalty rates, punitive multipliers) | Revenue analysis: Client Revenue Breakdown | Timeline: Revenue Timeline
Financial Evidence Summary
| Source | Amount | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Goldberg's own spreadsheets | $18.53M | Total collected under Litman's name (2020-2025) |
| NGM Trust Ledger (534 pages) | $32.7M | 2,214 dockets, 100% Litman-originated work |
| KFU Trust Account 36372 | $10.7M | 871 transactions, 668 sub-dockets (9/2020-11/2024) |
| 2025 billing (year-to-date) | $1.07M | Still billing under Litman's name |
| RL matters on WIP report | 453 matters / $1.29M | Unbilled work attributed to Litman |
| Litman-originated client share | 631 of 1,107 (57%) | Firm majority-dependent on Litman's clients |
| Accounting gap | $16.2M | $32.7M trust - $16.5M workup = unexplained discrepancy. Now corroborated by forensic analysis: 646 zero-overlap AR dockets ($2.46M), $8.6M untraceable sweeps, 66 ghost invoices ($560K). See forensic findings → |
Trust Account Irregularities
| Finding | Amount | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Trust Account Overdraft | -$415,426 | Nov 20, 2024 — Trust accounts hold client funds in escrow. An overdraft means spending money that belongs to clients. Potential bar ethics violation. |
| 133 Smoking Gun Invoices | $1,046,431 | Invoices billed under Litman's name post-termination. Each is a separate commercial use directed to a paying client — direct § 51 evidence. |
| 66 Ghost Invoices | $559,805 | Invoices with no corresponding trust deposit or client payment. Either fabricated billing or payments diverted outside trust accounting. |
| Lump-Sum Sweeps | $8.6M | Large wire transfers into trust with no docket reference. Cannot be traced to specific client matters — commingling evidence. |
| Zero-Overlap AR | $2.46M | 646 dockets in AR reports not appearing in trust ledger. Entirely separate accounting stream — corroborates $16.2M gap. |
| Migration defense destroyed | 1,699 entries | PCLaw (2018–2022) shows identical lump-sum pattern — system changed, pattern didn't. Source: Pre-migration trust ledger (187 pages) |
| Fee base reduced by $370K+ | $370K+ | 20% KFU discount (182 entries) + flat fee conversions + $314K penalties. Source: KFU trust ledger + penalty emails |
| Middle East AR: $3.01M | $3.01M | 11 clients, 1,228 invoices, 1.5% collected. Litman 20% = ~$602K. Source: Feb 24, 2025 client statements (62 pages) |
Pipeline and Outstanding Revenue
| Component | Amount | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Accounts Receivable | $8.9M | Outstanding AR attributed to Litman-originated work |
| Work in Progress (WIP) | $1.58M | Unbilled work still attributed to Litman |
| Total Pipeline | $10.5M | Revenue stream still flowing from Litman's name |
| Litman 20% Future Entitlement | $2.1M | 20% of pipeline revenue owed to Litman |
| KFU Dockets | 2,833 | 1,917 unique inventions — all Litman-originated |
Additional Forensic Findings
| Finding | Date | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Greene Letter Deduction Theory | Dec 28, 2022 | Goldberg's accountant proposed deducting Litman's revenue share — evidence of deliberate scheme to reduce payments while continuing name use |
| KFU VP Demand | Dec 2, 2024 | 6 specific directives from KFU Vice President never fully answered by Goldberg — institutional client dissatisfaction |
| 100% Collections Litman-Attributed | July 2025 | Five years post-termination, 100% of fee collections still attributed to Litman in internal records |
| KFU Penalties | 2024 | $314,500 in penalties for missed deadlines — work managed by Goldberg under Litman's name, harming Litman's professional reputation |
output/SETTLEMENT_LEVERAGE_MEMO.md
What Has Changed Since December 5, 2025
| Factor | Dec. 5, 2025 Status | March 27, 2026 Status |
|---|---|---|
| Goldberg personal acts | Argued; limited documentation | 16 signed POA forms confirmed via OCR + authenticated under oath in federal Exhibit A |
| Second attorney's personal acts | Unknown | 18 PTOL-85B forms — Lafave (Reg. 71013) — zero exceptions |
| "Automatic/clerical" defense | Available to defense | Destroyed: Box 2 "if no name listed, none printed" + switchover proves control |
| Consent defense | Asserted broadly | Destroyed: April 30, 2021 email reserves name rights; Combination Agreement has zero provisions; "purely as a courtesy" admission; judicial estoppel; 276K emails — zero consent |
| Financial evidence | Limited | $18.53M from Goldberg's spreadsheets; $32.7M trust ledger; $16.2M gap; $10.7M KFU trust; "JBGverbal" transfers; WIP report ($1.29M unbilled) |
| Consciousness of wrongdoing | Circumstantial | Jan 30, 2023 "fraud" text; Jan 14-21, 2025 switchover; website removal; 51 pages texts — zero POA discussion |
| Second individual defendant available | No | Yes — Lafave; he alone caused misappropriation in App 18/379,906 |
Pressure Points — What Defendants Stand to Lose
| Risk | Defendant | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| USPTO OED Exposure | Goldberg + Lafave | Using another practitioner's name on federal filings without authorization. Evidence is already in public USPTO records — OED complaint requires no additional discovery. Practitioner suspension = end of patent practice. |
| Second Defendant (Lafave) | NGM / Lafave | Plaintiff has not yet named Lafave. Filing an amended complaint is low-cost for plaintiff (evidence gathered), high-cost for defense (double representation, potential conflict, deposition exposure). |
| Institutional Client Exposure | NGM / Goldberg | KFU, KSU, KISR, KNPC — if they learn the attorney of record on their patents departed during prosecution, there is malpractice and client relationship risk. Settlement keeps this private; litigation makes it public. |
| Discovery Asymmetry | NGM / Goldberg | Billing records, K-1 distributions, and internal communications will sharpen damages and may reveal additional deliberate conduct. Plaintiff's case improves in discovery; defense's does not. |
| Lafave Deposition | NGM / Goldberg / Lafave | "Who directed you to put Litman's name in Box 2?" Either implicates Goldberg directly, or reveals independent choice by Lafave. Either answer helps plaintiff. |
Damages Exposure (Illustrative)
Financial evidence now quantified from Goldberg's own records. See full damages analysis above.
| Metric | Amount | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue collected under Litman's name | $18.53M | Goldberg's own Excel spreadsheets |
| Full trust ledger (all Litman dockets) | $32.7M | NGM Trust Ledger (534 pages) |
| Damages range (3 tiers) | $6.1M - $77.9M | MSJ Point III brief |
| Accounting gap | $16.2M | Trust ledger vs. financial workup discrepancy |
§ 51 also allows exemplary damages for knowing use and attorney's fees. Post-arbitration use is "knowing" (16 POAs starting 15 days after arbitration) — supporting a significant multiplier. Interactive Damages Calculator →
Recommended Sequencing
- First: Obtain Litman's non-consent declaration — the single most important remaining gap (fills §§ 50–51 Element 3 without ambiguity)
- Settlement trigger: File or credibly threaten amended complaint naming Lafave — opens settlement discussions on favorable terms
- Simultaneously: Serve billing records demand — response or refusal either sharpens damages or prompts settlement
- Counsel advises: OED referral timing — pre- vs. post-settlement referral (referral is independent of civil case; can proceed regardless)
output/SETTLEMENT_LEVERAGE_MEMO.mdoutput/. They are internal research/analysis — not for production unless ordered. The key memos for litigation use are marked with ⭐.⭐ SETTLEMENT_LEVERAGE_MEMO.md
Complete settlement leverage analysis: what has changed since Dec. 5, 2025; pressure points on Goldberg and Lafave (OED exposure, client exposure, discovery asymmetry); illustrative damages range; recommended sequencing. Internal/privileged.
⭐ PERSONAL_LIABILITY_MEMO.md
Maps each of Goldberg's personal acts (Acts 1–5) directly to specific government documents. Addresses the Dec. 5, 2025 judge's concern about managing-partner liability. Primary legal argument document.
⭐ MISAPPROPRIATION_ELEMENTS_PROOF.md
Maps all four §§ 50–51 elements to verified evidence. Includes scorecard, gap table, and defense counter-analysis. Read this before any motion practice.
⭐ GOLDBERG_PERSONAL_ACTIONS_CHRONOLOGY.md
Complete chronological table of every documented Goldberg act, with source documents. Primary deposition prep tool.
⭐ POA_GOLDBERG_SIGNATURE_TABLE.md
All 17 exhibit applications + 1 bonus, with signatory, date, registration number, customer number, and Line 74 result. OCR-verified from USPTO API downloads.
POINT_I_LIABILITY_DRAFT.md
MSJ Point I (Liability): All elements met as matter of law. Includes judicial estoppel argument, April 30 2021 email, Combination Agreement analysis. Drafted 2026-03-27.
POINT_II_REVISED_DRAFT.md
MSJ Point II (Dissemination + Trade): Four categories of name use, ~36,500 separate acts, $18.53M revenue, professional liability policy.
POINT_III_DAMAGES_DRAFT.md
MSJ Point III (Damages): Three-tier framework ($6.1M-$77.9M). Per-patent vs. "entire relationship" theory. Exemplary damages, attorney fees.
EXHIBIT_INDEX.md
74 numbered exhibits for MSJ — POAs, USPTO docs, financial records, admissions, arbitration findings, contracts, emails.
ELEMENT_BY_ELEMENT_ADMISSIONS_MATRIX.md
Master admissions matrix across all 6 sources (Answer, Discovery Responses, employee emails, Goldberg emails, Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment, RFAs). Maps each admission to element it proves.
COMBINATION_AGREEMENT_ANALYSIS.md
Full analysis of Combination Agreement + 2017 Amendment. Finding: zero provisions about personal name use. $214K mark payment does not authorize name use. Litman not a party.
COUNSEL_COVER_MEMO.md
One-page orientation for lawyers: what the package proves, three key documents to read first, hard evidence inventory, two things counsel must do before trial.
ASSIGNEE_VERIFICATION_RESULTS.md
Confirmed assignees for all 17 exhibit patents, including the three previously unconfirmed (D1,046,141 = KSU; 12,114,620 = KISR; 12,194,434 = KSU). Client breakdown table.
AUDIT_REPORT_2026-03-16.md
Formal audit report of all evidence gathered, dated 2026-03-16. Suitable for internal case file.
BEST_EVIDENCE_MEMO.md
Ranking of best exhibits by admissibility and impact. Identifies top 5 exhibits for trial.
EARLIEST_GOLDBERG_FINDINGS.md
Documents US 11,858,934 B1 (Jan. 2, 2024) as the first confirmed KFU patent with Goldberg on Line 74 — the transition marker.
NATHLAW_LATER_SNAPSHOTS_ANALYSIS.md
Analysis of Wayback captures from 2022–2025. Documents when Litman was removed from professionals page (between June 21 and Sept 5, 2025).
LINE_74_CONTROL_INFERENCE_MEMO.md
Legal memo on how Line 74 designations are made and who controls them. Supports theory that Goldberg affirmatively chose to maintain Litman's name.
CUSTOMER_NUMBER_AND_EVIDENCE_CHAIN_MEMO.md
Explains the CN-37833 evidence chain: POA → CN-37833 → prosecution → Line 74. Background on USPTO customer number system.
EVIDENCE_RFP_MAPPING.md
Maps each piece of evidence to the relevant RFP requests. Use when responding to discovery motions or drafting first discovery wave.
RFP_COMPLIANCE_CHECKLIST.md
Checklist of RFP obligations and what has been produced. Internal compliance tracking.
LEADS_CHECKLIST_AND_NEXT_STEPS.md
Full checklist of all research leads — completed, pending, and unchecked. Use to prioritize next research tasks.
KFU_KSU_ACCOUNTING_SUMMARY.md
Breakdown of KFU (467 Litman patents in 2024, 631 total) and KSU counts. For damages quantification argument.
ANALYSIS_FULL_REPORT.md
Full 10-analysis automated report on the 905-patent dataset. Background statistics and pattern analysis.
BOP_PATENT_LIST.md
Patent list mapped to the Basis of Proof structure. Cross-reference with exhibit numbering.
POA PDFs — PTO/AIA/82A Forms Signed by Goldberg (Primary Liability Evidence)
Application Transmittal PDFs — PTO/AIA/15 Forms Signed by Goldberg
Patent Front Pages — Line 74 Evidence
Assignment Center Screenshots (PNGs)
Full-page screenshots of USPTO Assignment Center records. Show correspondent, reel/frame, and assignee for each application.
Website Evidence
Key Data File
The 905-patent backbone dataset is too large to view in browser but is the quantitative foundation of this case.
richard_litman_attorney_issued_patents_since_2020-06-15.csv — 905 records, all patents with Litman as attorney since 6/15/2020NY Supreme Court, Kings County | Reassigned to Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C. (from Maslow)
Doc #60 — Goldberg's Motion to Dismiss: GRANTED as to Counts I-IV (accounting, constructive trust, unjust enrichment, fiduciary duty); DENIED as to misappropriation (Count V — NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51).
Doc #61 — Litman's Cross-Motion: GRANTED solely to the extent the misappropriation claim remains; otherwise DENIED.
Surviving claim: Count V — misappropriation of name under § 51. This is exactly the claim our patent evidence supports.
Full decision was "dictated in open court on the record" — transcript OBTAINED 03/27/2026 (
120525litman.pdf). Key findings: Gould (Goldberg's counsel) conceded Count V survives; pierce-the-veil analysis; court cited Turane v. MGN, LLC, 171 A.D.3d 835 (2d Dep't 2019) for LLC Law § 609 personal participation liability.
Full Court Filing Index
| Doc # | Document | Party | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #15 | Second Amended Complaint | Plaintiff | Open | Patent paras: 3, 32-35, 37-38, 72, 74 |
| #17 | Notice of Motion | Defendant | Open | |
| #18 | Defendant's Memorandum of Law | Defendant | Open | |
| #19 | Goldberg's Affirmation | Defendant | Open | NO patent mention |
| #38 | Stipulation | Both | Open | |
| #40 | Notice of Cross-Motion | Plaintiff | Open | |
| #41 | Litman's Affidavit | Plaintiff | Open | Paras 18-24: 467 KFU patents |
| #42 | Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law | Plaintiff | Open | |
| #43 | Proposed Order | Plaintiff | Open | |
| #60 | Decision/Order — Motion to Dismiss | Court | Open | Count V survives |
| #61 | Decision/Order — Cross-Motion | Court | Open | |
| #65 | Goldberg's Answer | Defendant | Open | Admissions at ¶32, ¶72 |
| #68 | Goldberg's BOP Demand | Defendant | Open | |
| #69 | Litman's BOP Demand | Plaintiff | Open | |
| #70 | Scheduling Order | Court | Open | Judge Gotlieb; depositions by 6/2/2026 |
| -- | Plaintiff's RFP Responses (3/16/2026) | Plaintiff | Open | |
| -- | Court Reporter Transcript (12/05/2025 Oral Decision) | Court | Open | OBTAINED 03/27/2026 — Maslow reasoning; Gould concedes Count V; Turane cite |
Second Amended Complaint — Patent Paragraph Cross-Reference
Paragraphs mentioning patents: ¶3, ¶32, ¶33, ¶34, ¶35, ¶37, ¶38, ¶72, ¶74
| Para | Content | Evidentiary Link |
|---|---|---|
| ¶33 | "Defendant Goldberg caused Plaintiff to be listed as attorney of record on hundreds of U.S. patents issued between 2020 and January 2025" | 905-patent dataset; Line 74 annotations |
| ¶38 | Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821) — Goldberg's own recorded statement that Litman owns his name, signature, voice, image, photograph or likeness | Assignment Center records |
| ¶72 | Count V: "used Plaintiff's name, identity, and reputation in commerce without consent, including by listing him as attorney of record on hundreds of U.S. patents" | All patent evidence; POA signatures; IFEE submissions |
| ¶3 | Background — Litman's professional identity and reputation | Website evidence; professional profile captures |
| ¶32 | Post-departure use of Litman's name | 905 patents post-6/15/2020 |
| ¶34-35 | Scope and pattern of unauthorized use | Patent clusters; chronological list |
| ¶37 | Additional acts of misappropriation | Website captures; assignment documents |
| ¶74 | Damages | KFU/KSU accounting summary; fee estimates |
Still Missing / Needed
120525litman.pdf, found in Gmail attachments). Key findings: Judge Maslow's reasoning preserved on record; Gould (Goldberg's counsel) conceded Count V survives; pierce-the-veil discussion; court cited Turane v. MGN, LLC, 171 A.D.3d 835 (2d Dep't 2019) for LLC Law § 609 personal participation liability.
Prepared: 2026-03-27 | FOR PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL ONLY — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
All PDF links are relative paths — open this HTML from within the extracted zip directory.