After Richard Litman's authority as an attorney at Nath, Goldberg & Meyer (NGM) was adjudicated by arbitration on June 14, 2023, two NGM attorneys — Joshua B. Goldberg and James N. Lafave — personally signed federal government documents that caused Litman's name to be printed on the face of 18 issued U.S. patents over the following year.
This is not a dispute about what the firm's systems did automatically. The government forms themselves prove it was deliberate: the PTOL-85 Part B issue fee transmittal — signed by Lafave on every single patent in this set — contains the printed instruction "If no name is listed, no name will be printed." Lafave typed Litman's name anyway. He did it 18 times across 169 days.
UPDATE — Goldberg Has Admitted the Core Facts. In his verified Answer (Doc #65, ¶32), Goldberg admits "Plaintiff's name appeared on the front page of patents issued to Plaintiff's originated clients after June 15, 2020, and that Plaintiff's name and biography appeared on NGM's website after June 15, 2020." His primary remaining defense — implied consent — is addressed by his own recorded statement at the USPTO (Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment, Reel 007281, Frame 0821), which expressly states Litman owns his name. Documentary evidence addresses each of his 10 affirmative defenses. The case is now in active discovery with depositions due by June 2, 2026.
NEW — Four Categories of Name Use (March 25, 2026). Analysis has identified ~36,500 separate acts of name use across four categories: (1) 905 patents + 206 outgoing USPTO docs, (2) ~24,526 client-facing emails forwarding Litman-named documents to paying clients, (3) ~1,813 trademark practice emails where Litman's name attracted business (Nicola Pizza, Dakota AG, etc.), and (4) ~9,050 foreseeable republications across Google Patents, Espacenet, Justia, and other third-party databases. The KNPC transition proves Goldberg had knowing conscious control — he put his own name on 3 KNPC patents while billing those same matters under "Richard Litman." See full analysis →
UPDATE — March 27-28, 2026: Complete MSJ Package + Gmail Deep Dive. A comprehensive analysis of Goldberg's own discovery responses, federal court filings, arbitration record, 51 pages of text messages, and 115,000+ Gmail messages has produced five case-defining findings: (1) Goldberg's BOP response admits name use was "purely as a courtesy" — destroying his contractual authorization defense; (2) a judicial estoppel trap — his arbitration position (agreement terminated 6/15/2020) contradicts his NY consent defense; (3) his PI Opposition in federal court admits the name use was "because of the revenue share" — conceding commercial purpose; (4) both Combination Agreements contain zero name-use provisions; and (5) the arbitrator found Goldberg is "not a party to the contracts" — he cannot claim consent from agreements he has no standing under. Trust ledger analysis reveals $32.7M in receipts across 2,214 dockets, all attributed to Litman. Damages range: $6.1M conservative / $29.1M moderate / $78.4M full recovery. Interactive damages calculator →
since 6/15/2020
Litman's name
(Power of Attorney)
(PTOL-85 Part B)
emails found
personally
originated by Litman (57%)
RL as of June 2025
1. "PURELY AS A COURTESY" (BOP Response, Feb. 26, 2026)
Goldberg's BOP response states: "NGM included Plaintiff's name on patents and on its website purely as a courtesy." Nine days earlier, his RFA No. 7 response (Feb. 17, 2026) claims the Combination Agreements ARE written consent for Line 74 listings. You cannot claim both contractual right AND courtesy. This single contradiction, made under oath, guts the consent defense. If the name inclusion was a "courtesy," then no contract compelled it — and Goldberg needed separate written consent that he never obtained.
2. JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL TRAP (Arbitration vs. State Court)
In his 53-page post-arbitration brief (5/24/2023), Goldberg swore the Combination Agreement terminated on 6/15/2020 — "treat it like death." The arbitrator accepted this. Now in NY, he claims that same terminated agreement authorizes post-6/15/2020 name use. A party cannot take contradictory positions in successive proceedings after prevailing on the first. Becerril v. City of New York, 157 A.D.3d 553 (1st Dep't 2018). If the agreement terminated, it cannot authorize anything after termination.
3. PI OPPOSITION ADMISSIONS — "Because of the Revenue Share" (EDNY, Oct. 10, 2025)
Goldberg's own federal counsel (Connell Foley LLP) admitted in a signed court filing: "The parties' practice was also to include Plaintiff along with NGM as counsel for any matters for originated clients, including within filings and client communications because of the revenue share." This is a judicial admission through counsel that: (a) the name use was a deliberate "practice," not incidental; (b) it was motivated by revenue; and (c) Goldberg caused it. Cannot be withdrawn.
4. ZERO NAME-USE PROVISIONS IN EITHER CONTRACT
A complete word-by-word review of the Combination Agreement (March 29, 2017) and the Amendment (May 7, 2017) — the only two contracts Goldberg identifies as his basis for consent — reveals: the word "consent" does not appear. "Goodwill" does not appear. "Power of Attorney" is not mentioned. What was transferred: corporate stock, domain names, phone numbers, and customer numbers. A customer number is an administrative routing mechanism — not a personal name license.
5. ARBITRATOR: "GOLDBERG IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACTS"
The arbitrator explicitly found in the Full Award (NYSCEF Doc 34): "Goldberg is not a party to the contracts." If he is not a party, he cannot derive consent from those contracts. His Discovery Response No. 1 points to "the Combination Agreements" as his basis for consent — but the arbitrator's binding determination says he has no contractual relationship with Litman through those agreements. A non-party to a contract cannot invoke that contract as authorization for his conduct — specifically, his 16 personal POA signatures (Reg. 44126) that caused Litman's name to appear on 905 patents.
Goldberg's sworn statements, discovery responses, and affirmative defenses contain irreconcilable contradictions. Each independently undermines his credibility and confirms the elements of the § 51 claim.
| # | Contradiction | Position A | Position B | Why Irreconcilable |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contractual Authorization vs. "Purely a Courtesy" | RFA No. 7 (Feb. 17, 2026): Combination Agreements are the written consent for Line 74 listings. | BOP Eighth Defense (Feb. 26, 2026): Name use was "purely as a courtesy." | A "courtesy" is discretionary; a contractual right is obligatory. Both cannot be true simultaneously. |
| 2 | Website Consent Conflated with Patent Consent | Text messages: Litman discussed his "Senior Counsel" title on the website. | NY Answer: Implies consent covers all name use, including Line 74 patent designations. | Discussing a website bio is not consent to put one's name on government filings. These are entirely different categories of name use. |
| 3 | "Had the Ability to Remove" vs. "Only NGM Attorneys Submitted" | EDNY: Argued Litman "had the ability" to remove his name from patent filings. | Federal Sanctions Brief: "Only NGM attorneys have submitted Power of Attorney forms." | If only NGM attorneys submitted the POAs, Litman had no ability to remove his name from filings he could not access. |
| 4 | "Unable to Admit or Deny" Signatures vs. Federal Authentication Under Oath | RFA Nos. 3 and 14 (Feb. 17, 2026): Claims he is "unable to admit or deny" whether he signed the POAs. | EDNY Exhibit A (Oct. 10, 2025): Authenticated POA transmittals under oath in federal court. | Goldberg cannot authenticate his own signatures under oath in one proceeding and then claim inability to confirm them in another. |
| 5 | Agreement Terminated (Arbitration) vs. Agreement Authorizes (State Court) | Arbitration (2023): Swore the Combination Agreement terminated on 6/15/2020. Arbitrator accepted this. | NY Answer (2026): Tenth Affirmative Defense invokes same agreements as basis for post-6/15/2020 consent. | A terminated agreement cannot authorize conduct after its termination. This is the judicial estoppel trap. |
| 6 | "He Doesn't Work Here" vs. "Of Counsel" on Insurance | NGM employee Tanya Harkins (5/21/2021): "he doesn't work here anymore" (CC'd to Goldberg). | Goldberg signed insurance application (7/6/2021): Lists Litman as "OC" (Of Counsel) on Schedule of Attorneys. | 46 days later, Goldberg represented to a regulated insurer that Litman was affiliated with the firm. He told Litman one thing and the insurer another. |
Why This Section Matters
In his verified Answer to the Second Amended Complaint (Doc #65), Joshua B. Goldberg has admitted the core factual predicate of the §§ 50-51 claim. The remaining questions are legal — and the documentary record addresses each of his affirmative defenses.
Admission #1 — Answer ¶32
"Defendant admits only that Plaintiff's name appeared on the front page of patents issued to Plaintiff's originated clients after June 15, 2020, and that Plaintiff's name and biography appeared on NGM's website after June 15, 2020."
What this concedes: Litman's name was used on patents AND on the website after the SOL cutoff. Element 1 of §§ 50-51 (use of name) is established by the defendant's own pleading.
Admission #2 — Answer ¶72 (Count V Response)
"Defendant admits that Plaintiff's name appeared on the front page of patents issued to his originated clients, and on NGM's website."
This is the response to the Count V misappropriation allegation itself. Goldberg has admitted the factual basis of the surviving claim in his own pleading.
Admitted vs. Contested Elements
With the ¶32 and ¶72 admissions, the remaining contested elements are:
| Element | Status | Our Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Use of name | ADMITTED by Goldberg | 905 patents; website captures; 2,697 USPTO notification emails; 453 open matters still listing RL as of June 2025 |
| For trade | ADMITTED (PI Opposition) | Goldberg's federal counsel admitted name use was "because of the revenue share" (EDNY PI Opposition, Oct. 10, 2025). $32.7M trust receipts under Litman's name. $24.5M post-6/15/2020. 631 of 1,107 clients (57%) originated by Litman. 7,127 of 14,103 case files (50.5%) attributed to RL. Revenue timeline → |
| Without consent | Goldberg asserts consent — CONTRADICTED 3 WAYS | No written consent document produced. BOP admits name use was "purely as a courtesy" (not contractual). The Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821), recorded by Goldberg himself, states "Plaintiff owns his name." Three emails from Litman expressly objecting (May 2023, July 2023, June 2025). 16 POAs signed post-arbitration. Zero POA discussion in 51 pages of text messages. Combination Agreements contain zero name-use provisions. Judicial estoppel: Goldberg argued same agreements terminated 6/15/2020. |
| Defendant's benefit | ADMITTED (RFA No. 4) | RFA No. 4: "the Firm collected legal fees" and Litman "received a percentage of the legal fees collected." $32.7M trust ledger. 76-79% firm dependency on Litman-originated work. Trust control analysis → |
What Goldberg Denied
Answer ¶33: "Defendant denies the allegations within paragraph 33."
¶33 of the complaint: "Defendant Goldberg caused Plaintiff to be listed as attorney of record on hundreds of U.S. patents."
Documentary Evidence That Goldberg Caused the Listing
| Document Type | Count | What It Proves |
|---|---|---|
| Powers of Attorney (PTO/AIA/82A) | 16 | Personally signed by Goldberg (Reg. 44126) — each one appointed CN-37833 which carries Litman's name as attorney of record |
| PTOL-85B Issue Fee Transmittals | 18 | Signed by Lafave, typing "Richard C. Litman" in Box 2 — directly causing Litman's name on the issued patent face |
| Filing Receipts (APP.FILE.REC) | 22 | USPTO's own confirmation listing "Richard C. Litman" as attorney — triggered by Goldberg's POA filing |
| Non-Final Office Actions (CTNF) | 9 | USPTO rejections addressed to "Richard C. Litman" — substantive prosecution conducted under his name |
| Final Office Actions (CTFR) | 4 | Final rejections addressed to "Richard C. Litman" — NGM responded under his name |
| Assignment Cover Sheets | 3+ | Signed by Goldberg listing "RICHARD C. LITMAN / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer" as correspondent |
Total documented acts across 4 exemplar applications: 68+ individual government documents bearing Litman's name. The full 905-patent set is expected to show a proportional volume.
| Defense | Goldberg's Argument | Evidence That Defeats It |
|---|---|---|
| #1-2: Statute of Limitations / CPLR 215(3) | Claims are time-barred under the one-year SOL | Each new patent is a new publication — a unique patent number, date, and content. 12 patents issued after 7/21/2024 (well within 1 year of July 2025 filing). Each of the 206 USPTO documents in the prosecution files is a separate publication. The "deck of cards" — not one act per patent, but 10-26 per application. |
| #3: First Publication Rule (Nussenzweig v. diCorcia) | SOL accrues on first publication only | Each issued patent is a separate publication with a unique patent number, date, and content. Each Filing Receipt, Office Action, and NOA is a separate mailing. The website was updated multiple times (added "Retired" between June-Sept 2025). These are NOT republications of the same material — they are new government documents with new dates. |
| #4: Failure to state a claim | No cause of action | Already rejected. Judge Maslow denied the motion to dismiss as to Count V on 12/05/2025 (Doc #60). The §§ 50-51 claim survived. |
| #5: Waiver / Estoppel / Laches / Unclean Hands | Litman waited too long or consented by inaction | Litman was physically disabled as of June 2020 (Goldberg admits this at ¶39 of his Answer). Litman filed the arbitration, then this lawsuit. No unreasonable delay. |
| #6-7: Res Judicata / Collateral Estoppel | Arbitrator already decided | The arbitration addressed employment terms and revenue share, NOT §§ 50-51 identity misappropriation. The arbitrator never ruled on patent name use. Judge Maslow already rejected this defense on 12/05/2025. |
| #8: Failure to Mitigate | Litman should have stopped the name use | Litman had no access to CN-37833 or the USPTO filings. Only NGM controlled the customer number. You cannot mitigate what you cannot access. |
| #9: No Damages | Litman was not harmed | 905 patents permanently bear Litman's name as the certifying attorney for work he never reviewed. Professional liability exposure for up to 20 years per patent. Website displayed his name as "Patent Attorney" through June 2025. |
| #10: Implied/Express Consent | Litman authorized the use | No written consent document exists. The Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821), recorded by Goldberg himself at the USPTO, expressly states "Plaintiff owns his name, signature, voice, image, photograph or likeness." Goldberg's own recorded statement contradicts his consent defense. 16 POAs were signed post-arbitration — after formal notice of the dispute. |
Assessment for Settlement Purposes — Updated March 28, 2026
Goldberg has admitted the name use (Answer ¶32, ¶72). His own federal counsel admitted commercial purpose ("because of the revenue share"). His BOP response admits the use was "purely as a courtesy" — destroying the contractual authorization defense. His RFA responses admit fee collection tied to Litman's name. His Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment states Litman owns his name. The Combination Agreements contain zero name-use provisions. He is judicially estopped from claiming authorization from agreements he argued were terminated. The arbitrator found he is "not a party to the contracts." Six documented self-contradictions undermine his credibility. The central question is now damages — and the $32.7M trust ledger, $24.5M post-SOL receipts, and 76-79% firm dependency establish a substantial range ($6.1M conservative / $29.1M moderate / $78.4M full recovery).
The Lawyers' Question Answered
The mechanism is not complicated. Every patent application produces a chain of official USPTO documents, each bearing the attorney of record's name. Goldberg's one act — signing a Power of Attorney designating Customer Number 37833 — caused Litman's name to cascade through every stage of prosecution: the Filing Receipt, Office Actions (where they occurred), the Notice of Allowance, and ultimately Line 74 of the issued patent. Goldberg's firm then received — and responded to — all of it under Litman's name.
names Litman as atty
designates CN-37833
Goldberg → USPTO
"Attorney: Richard C. Litman"
Sent to CN-37833 / NGM
USPTO → NGM/Litman
to "Richard C. Litman"
at CN-37833 — NGM responds
USPTO → NGM/Litman
on Line 74 — sent to
CN-37833 / NGM
USPTO → NGM/Litman
types "Richard C. Litman"
in Box 2
Lafave → USPTO
"Nath, Goldberg & Meyer;
Richard C. Litman"
Permanent
Filing Receipts (APP.FILE.REC) — The Government's First Confirmation
Immediately after Goldberg files a POA designating CN-37833, the USPTO issues an official Filing Receipt. This document, addressed to Nath, Goldberg & Meyer at CN-37833, lists Richard C. Litman as the attorney of record. It is the federal government's own confirmation — triggered by Goldberg's act — that Litman is the attorney on the case. 22 Filing Receipts have been downloaded and are available in evidence/mechanism_docs/.
Office Actions (CTNF / CTFR) — Active Prosecution Under Litman's Name
For applications that received rejections before allowance — notably App 18/242,465 (Patent 12,043,608, 74 IFW documents) — the USPTO issued Non-Final and Final Office Actions addressed to "Richard C. Litman" at CN-37833 / NGM. NGM attorneys then responded to those rejections under Litman's name, conducting the substantive legal work of patent prosecution — arguing claim scope, traversing prior art, amending claims — with Litman identified as the responsible attorney. He knew nothing of it. 9 Non-Final and 4 Final Office Actions are available in evidence/mechanism_docs/.
Assignments — The Second Channel of Use
Parallel to the prosecution channel, Goldberg used Litman's name on patent assignment cover sheets. When KFU or other clients assigned their inventions to the institution, Goldberg signed the cover sheet listing "RICHARD C. LITMAN / NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER" as the correspondent — using his personal email (jgoldberg@nathlaw.com) while printing Litman's name as the attorney. These assignments are permanently recorded in the USPTO Assignment Center and are fully public.
| Application | Date | Signatory | Correspondent Block | Reel/Frame |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18/392,663 | Dec. 21, 2023 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ jgoldberg@nathlaw.com | RICHARD C. LITMAN / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | 065933/0139 |
| 18/383,448 | Oct. 29, 2023 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ jgoldberg@nathlaw.com | RICHARD C. LITMAN / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | 065379/0084 |
| 18/118,551 | Mar. 7, 2023 | Nahied K. Usman (NGM staff) | RICHARD C. LITMAN / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer | (see tracker) |
Note: App 18/392,663 — Goldberg signed both the POA and the assignment cover sheet on the same day (Dec. 21, 2023). Two separate federal documents, same application, same day.
Power of Attorney (Incoming)
PTO/AIA/82A — signed personally by Joshua B. Goldberg (Reg. 44126). He appointed Customer Number 37833 as attorneys of record, placing Litman's name in the correspondence block for every resulting patent. 16 forms. All post-arbitration.
evidence/poa_pdfs/
Issue Fee Transmittal (Incoming)
PTOL-85 Part B — signed personally by James N. Lafave (Reg. 71013). He typed "Richard C. Litman" in Box 2 — the field the form itself identifies as the direct cause of what prints on Line 74. 18 forms. Zero exceptions.
evidence/ifw_ifee/IFEE_*.pdf
Issue Notification (Outgoing)
USPTO IR103 — the federal government's own outgoing correspondence formally addressed to "Richard C. Litman / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer" as of April 2024. The USPTO treated Litman as attorney of record because NGM maintained his identity in Customer Number 37833.
evidence/ifw_ifee/ISSUE_NTF_*.pdf
Why This Is Personal Liability, Not Firm Liability
The PTO/AIA/82A form is titled "Transmittal for Power of Attorney to One or More Registered Practitioners." It requires a personal signature and a personal USPTO registration number. Goldberg's individual registration number — 44126 — appears on 16 of these forms. The judge's December 5, 2025 concern ("the firm did it, not Goldberg personally") is directly contradicted: these are individual practitioner acts, not corporate filings.
| Patent | Application | Docket | POA Date | Signature (OCR) | Reg# | CN Appointed | Line 74 Result | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11,881,807 | 18/215,352 | 33110.68U | 2023-06-29 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ | 44126 | 37833 | Richard C. Litman | |
| 11,932,607 | 18/384,685 | 33135.26U | 2023-10-30 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ | 44126 | 37833 | Richard C. Litman | |
| 11,976,365 | 18/122,396 | 33101.73U | 2023-03-16 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ | 44126 | 37833 | Richard C. Litman | |
| 11,980,937 | 18/392,663 | 33150.15U | 2023-12-21 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ | 44126 | 37833 | Richard C. Litman | |
| 12,043,608 | 18/242,465 | 33120.91U | 2023-09-05 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ | 44126 | 37833 | Richard C. Litman | |
| 12,049,459 | 18/241,394 | 33120.88U | 2023-10-02 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ | 44126 | 37833 | Richard C. Litman | |
| 12,054,460 | 18/414,442 | 33170.94A | 2024-01-16 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ | 44126 | 37833 | Richard C. Litman | |
| 12,054,464 | 18/428,327 | 33175.68A | 2024-02-14 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ | 44126 | 37833 | Richard C. Litman | |
| 12,062,780 | 18/413,239 | 33160.59U | 2024-01-29 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ | 44126 | 37833 | Richard C. Litman | |
| 12,065,424 | 18/425,923 | 33175.60A | 2024-02-26 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ | 44126 | 37833 | Richard C. Litman | |
| 12,071,437 | 18/411,323 | 33150.41U | 2024-01-26 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ | 44126 | 37833 | Richard C. Litman | |
| 12,116,333 | 18/511,800 | 33150.71A | 2023-11-16 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ | 44126 | 37833 | Richard C. Litman | |
| 12,194,434 | 18/612,504 | 33056.80A | 2024-03-21 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ | 44126 | 37833 | Richard C. Litman | |
| 11,952,371 | 18/383,448 | — | 2023-10-24 | /Joshua B. Goldberg/ ★ CLEAREST | 44126 | 37833 | Richard C. Litman | PDF ★ |
★ POA_11952371_18383448_2023-10-24.pdf is the clearest signature image in the evidence set — no OCR artifacts. Use as the primary demonstrative exhibit. Highlighted row (11,980,937): Goldberg signed both the POA and the application transmittal on the same day (Dec. 21, 2023) — the single strongest personal-control exhibit.
Why This Addresses the "Automatic/Clerical" Defense
The form states plainly: leave Box 2 blank and no name appears on the patent. Lafave did not leave it blank. He typed "Richard C. Litman" 18 consecutive times, across 169 days, across 3 different institutional clients, including on one application (18/379,906) where he himself signed the companion Power of Attorney. On that application, he made both decisions — the POA and the Box 2 entry — independently.
| Patent | Application | Docket | PTOL-85B Date | Signatory | Reg# | Box 2 — Typed by Lafave | Assignee | POA Signer | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11,881,807 | 18/215,352 | 33110.68U | 2023-12-18 | James Lafave | 71013 | Richard C. Litman | KFU | Goldberg | |
| 11,932,607 | 18/384,685 | 33135.26U | 2024-01-29 | James Lafave | 71013 | Richard C. Litman | KFU | Goldberg | |
| 11,976,365 | 18/122,396 | 33101.73U | 2024-04-01 | James Lafave | 71013 | Richard C. Litman | KFU | Goldberg | |
| 11,980,937 | 18/392,663 | 33150.15U | 2024-04-04 | James Lafave | 71013 | Richard C. Litman | KFU | Goldberg | |
| 12,043,608 | 18/242,465 | 33120.91U | 2024-04-25 | James Lafave | 71013 | Richard C. Litman | KFU | Goldberg | |
| 12,043,609 | 18/379,906 | 33130.47U | 2024-04-26 | James Lafave | 71013 | Richard C. Litman | KFU | Lafave ⚑ DUAL ACT | |
| 12,049,459 | 18/241,394 | 33120.88U | 2024-02-15 | James Lafave | 71013 | Richard C. Litman | KFU | Goldberg | |
| 12,054,460 | 18/414,442 | 33170.94A | 2024-06-03 | James Lafave | 71013 | Richard C. Litman | KFU | Goldberg | |
| 12,054,464 | 18/428,327 | 33175.68A | 2024-06-03 | James Lafave | 71013 | Richard C. Litman | KFU | Goldberg | |
| 12,062,780 | 18/413,239 | 33160.59U | 2024-03-27 | James Lafave | 71013 | Richard C. Litman | KFU | Meyer | |
| 12,065,424 | 18/425,923 | 33175.60A | 2024-05-30 | James Lafave | 71013 | Richard C. Litman | KFU | Goldberg | |
| 12,071,437 | 18/411,323 | 33150.41U | 2024-05-21 | James Lafave | 71013 | Richard C. Litman | KFU | Goldberg | |
| D1,046,141 | 29/746,671 | 33056.38 | 2024-06-05 | James Lafave | 71013 | Richard C. Litman | KSU | Reg. 147148 | |
| 12,114,620 | 18/241,049 | 32366.97U | 2024-04-17 | James Lafave | 71013 | Richard C. Litman | KISR | KISR Dir. General | |
| 12,116,333 | 18/511,800 | 33150.71A | 2024-06-05 | James Lafave | 71013 | Richard C. Litman | KFU | Goldberg | |
| 12,194,434 | 18/612,504 | 33056.80A | 2024-05-28 | James Lafave | 71013 | Richard C. Litman | KSU | Goldberg |
⚑ Highlighted row (App 18/379,906): Lafave signed both the POA and the PTOL-85B — he alone caused Patent 12,043,609 to issue with Litman's name. Note: App 18/413,239 POA was signed by Meyer (not Goldberg) — Lafave still wrote Litman in Box 2, showing his conduct was independent of Goldberg.
Signed by: James N. Lafave, Reg. 71013
- Date: October 13, 2023 (post-arbitration)
- Appointed Customer Number 37833
- CN-37833 carries Litman's name in correspondence block
- PDF: POA_12043609_18379906_2023-10-13_0.pdf
Signed by: James N. Lafave, Reg. 71013
- Date: April 26, 2024 (post-arbitration)
- Box 2 typed: "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer / Richard C. Litman"
- USPTO prints Litman's name on Line 74 of Patent 12,043,609
- PDF: IFEE_12043609_18379906_2024-04-26.pdf
The Significance
For Patent 12,043,609, Goldberg was not involved — Lafave signed both acts himself. The deposition question on this application is straightforward: "Who told you to write Litman's name in Box 2 on this form?" If someone directed him, it implicates broader coordination. If he acted independently, it establishes his own personal liability. Either answer advances Plaintiff's case.
USPTO Issue Notification (IR103) — App 18/392,663 / Patent 11,980,937
"Richard C. Litman / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer / 112 S. West Street / Alexandria, VA 22314"
This is not NGM writing Litman's name — this is the United States Patent and Trademark Office formally addressing official patent issuance correspondence to Richard Litman as attorney of record. The notification is dated April 24, 2024 — nearly a year after the arbitration. It exists because NGM actively maintained Litman's name in Customer Number 37833. They controlled the account. They could have removed his name. They did not.
This document is self-authenticating under FRE 902(5) as an official U.S. government record. It requires no expert witness, no foundation testimony, and no custodian declaration to admit at trial. The jury can read it. It addresses Litman by name. The date is April 2024.
For three patents, the full documentary chain is available: Goldberg's POA → USPTO Filing Receipt (Litman as attorney of record) → Notice of Allowance → Lafave's PTOL-85B (Litman in Box 2) → issued patent with Litman on Line 74. Each row is a complete, self-contained chain of causation traceable to named individuals at each step. Filing Receipts and office actions are in evidence/mechanism_docs/ (116 PDFs downloaded).
| Patent | Issued | ① Goldberg POA | ② Filing Receipt | ③ Lafave PTOL-85B | ④ Result — Line 74 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11,980,937 | May 14, 2024 Patent PDF |
Dec. 21, 2023 Goldberg signed POA + assignment same day POA PDF |
Feb. 8, 2024 USPTO confirms Litman as attorney → sent to CN-37833/NGM Filing Receipt PDF |
Apr. 4, 2024 Lafave typed Litman in Box 2 PTOL-85B PDF |
Nath, Goldberg & Meyer; Richard C. Litman |
| 12,043,608 | Jul. 23, 2024 Patent PDF |
Sep. 5, 2023 Goldberg signed POA POA PDF |
Sep. 15, 2023 USPTO confirms Litman as attorney Filing Receipt PDF Also has office actions (74-doc IFW) |
Apr. 25, 2024 Lafave typed Litman in Box 2 PTOL-85B PDF |
Nath, Goldberg & Meyer; Richard C. Litman |
| 12,116,333 | Oct. 15, 2024 Patent PDF |
Nov. 16, 2023 Goldberg signed POA POA PDF |
Dec. 5, 2023 USPTO confirms Litman as attorney Filing Receipt PDF |
Jun. 5, 2024 Lafave typed Litman in Box 2 PTOL-85B PDF |
Nath, Goldberg & Meyer; Richard C. Litman |
All Filing Receipts are in evidence/mechanism_docs/
Scale Since 6/15/2020
905 patents list Litman as attorney of record. KFU alone filed 631 patents in 2024 — the most of any university in the world that year. 467 of those list Litman.
Post-Arbitration Scope
All 18 Lafave PTOL-85B acts and all 16 Goldberg POA acts occurred after June 14, 2023 — after both men were on formal notice that Litman's authority had been adjudicated.
Multiple Clients
Lafave used Litman's name in Box 2 across patents for KFU, KSU, and KISR — three separate institutional clients. This was not a single-matter oversight. It was firm policy.
Hidden Attribution — Front Page Gap Patents
Two King Saud University patents (US 12,227,748 and US 12,303,254) were flagged because their eGrant front pages do not show Litman as attorney — yet the entire IFW prosecution file is conducted under his name. Every Filing Receipt, Office Action, and Notice of Allowance is addressed to "Richard C. Litman / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer." The PTOL-85B for both lists "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer" and "Joshua B. Goldberg" as attorneys. Goldberg signed both POAs personally — the most recent on January 17, 2025. If two randomly selected "gap" patents show this pattern, hundreds more likely do as well.
Framework — Updated March 28, 2026
Under NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51, each unauthorized use of a person's name for trade purposes without written consent is independently actionable. Damages may include compensatory damages, disgorgement of profits, exemplary damages for knowing violations, and injunctive relief. The evidence below is organized by category, from primary to supporting. Interactive damages calculator →
Conservative
$6.1M
Royalty at 10% + 1.5x punitive
Moderate
$29.1M
Royalty at 20% + additional items + 2x punitive
Full Recovery
$78.4M
Disgorgement + 3x punitive
Patent Publications
905 U.S. patents issued since 6/15/2020 listing "Richard C. Litman" on Line 74 — each a formal, public, permanent government document identifying Litman as attorney of record. Each patent is a distinct publication: unique patent number, issue date, and content.
Revenue Tied to Patent Prosecution
Goldberg's own financial spreadsheets show $18.53 million in fees collected under Litman's name (2020-2025). Litman's contractual share (20% of attorney fees) represents $3.71 million in unpaid compensation. These figures come from defendant's records, not plaintiff's estimates.
| Metric | Amount | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Trust ledger total receipts (all Litman-attributed dockets) | $32.7M | NGM trust ledger dated June 26, 2025 (2,214 dockets) |
| Post-6/15/2020 trust receipts | $24.5M | Trust ledger — SOL-period receipts only |
| Total fees collected under Litman's name (Goldberg's workup) | $18.53M | Goldberg's Excel spreadsheets (produced in discovery) |
| $16.2M accounting gap (trust ledger vs. Goldberg's workup) | $16.2M | $32.7M trust ledger minus $16.5M workup — unexplained discrepancy |
| Litman's 20% contractual share | $3.71M | Combination Agreement terms |
| Estimated shortfall paid vs. owed | ~$1.47M | Payment reconciliation (2020-2023) |
| Outstanding accounts receivable (Litman-attributed) | $3.18M | Goldberg's June 2025 ledger |
| KFU + KSU invoiced total | $23.15M | Matter-by-matter reconciliation (3,132 dockets) |
| KFU trust account verified | $10.7M | KFU trust account 36372 — 871 transactions, 668 dockets |
| Litman-originated clients | 631 of 1,107 (57%) | NGM's own client list (List of Files RL Resp.pdf) |
| Litman-attributed case files | 7,127 of 14,103 (50.5%) | NGM's own file inventory |
| Open matters still listing RL (June 2025) | 453 | WIP Detailed Report, June 16, 2025 |
| Firm dependency on Litman-originated work | 76-79% | Revenue attribution analysis |
| JBG-directed trust transactions on Litman dockets | 95 | Trust ledger "JBGverbal" entries — personal fund control. View analysis → |
Note: All dollar figures above are derived from Goldberg's own financial records. Final numbers will be established through billing records in discovery.
| Category | Count | Nature of Use |
|---|---|---|
| USPTO Outgoing Documents (Filing Receipts, Office Actions, NOAs) | 206 identified (across 21 patents) | Federal government correspondence formally addressed to "Richard C. Litman / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer." Each is a separate publication bearing Litman's name in connection with NGM's trade. View full deck → |
| Assignment Cover Sheets | 3+ confirmed | Filed at USPTO Assignment Center listing "RICHARD C. LITMAN / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer" as correspondent. Signed by Goldberg. Permanently recorded in public federal database. |
| nathlaw.com Website | Active through June 21, 2025 | Litman listed as "PATENT ATTORNEY" — no "Retired" designation — on firm's public website. Removed by September 5, 2025, after lawsuit filed. Screenshots → |
| Trademark Records | Federal registrations | "LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD." mark assigned to NGM. Used in client-facing communications and government filings under Litman's identity. |
| USPTO Notification Emails | 2,697 (1,598 to Goldberg) | USPTO notification emails found in 276K email archive, each a separate instance of Goldberg receiving documents bearing Litman's name. 1,598 sent to Goldberg personally — proving ongoing knowledge. |
| Client Communications | 994 identified (647 post-SOL) | Emails referencing Litman by name in client-facing contexts. Kuwait University referred to NGM as "Litman's office." Client relationships maintained under Litman's identity. |
NY Civil Rights Law § 51 permits exemplary damages where the defendant's use is knowing. The following evidence bears on that question, organized chronologically.
November 11, 2020 — Goldberg Received Disability Approval
Goldberg forwarded MetLife's LTD approval to Litman: "In case you have not seen this yet, the below makes it look like MetLife approved your disability claim. So that looks like good news." MetLife Claim #692009108889, benefit start date September 13, 2020. From this date, Goldberg had documented knowledge that Litman was on long-term disability.
April 30, 2021 — Litman Expressly Reserved Name Rights
"The assignment of the LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. mark does not include the right to use my name separate and apart from the mark."
Litman to Goldberg (C2051472_ND0000270242.msg). This email establishes that Goldberg had actual notice — in writing — that the trademark assignment did not authorize personal name use. Combined with the Assignment clause itself ("Assignee agrees that Assignor owns his name"), this addresses the consent defense directly.
EDNY PI Opposition — Goldberg's Own Federal Counsel Admitted Commercial Purpose (Oct. 10, 2025)
In a signed federal court filing (DN 25, Connell Foley LLP), Goldberg's counsel made the following judicial admissions — statements through counsel that cannot be withdrawn:
- "The parties' practice was also to include Plaintiff along with NGM as counsel for any matters for originated clients, including within filings and client communications because of the revenue share."
- "NGM agreed with Plaintiff that he would continue to be listed as a Senior Counsel at the firm because of the parties' agreement to share revenue from originated clients."
- "Plaintiff represented it was in both parties' financial interest to do so."
- "Plaintiff's biography no longer appears on NGM's website." (confirming past use)
- "NGM has ceased listing Plaintiff as counsel on its communications." (confirming prior use + control)
These admissions establish: (a) the name use was deliberate, not incidental; (b) it was commercially motivated; (c) Goldberg/NGM controlled the listing and ceased it when they chose to.
BOP Response — "Purely as a Courtesy" (Feb. 26, 2026)
"NGM included Plaintiff's name on patents and on its website purely as a courtesy."
This admission is fatal to the consent defense. If the name inclusion was "purely a courtesy," then it was not authorized by the Combination Agreements — it was a discretionary act by Goldberg. A "courtesy" that generates $24.5 million in post-SOL fees is not incidental — it is a commercial asset. And a "courtesy" is, by definition, voluntary — which means Goldberg could have stopped at any time. He chose not to.
Goldberg's Admissions in Arbitration (June 14, 2023)
During arbitration proceedings, Goldberg made the following acknowledgments:
- Acknowledged Litman had been "on disability for close to 3 years" (since ~2020)
- Acknowledged owing Litman $300,000 in offset disability payments
- Acknowledged Litman is entitled to a percentage of fee billings
- Acknowledged the Combination Agreement with a 5-year termination period
- Described himself as "Co-Managing Partner" — confirming his operational control of the firm
These admissions establish that Goldberg knew Litman was disabled, knew the partnership had a defined termination structure, and exercised managerial control over NGM's operations — including its USPTO filings.
EDNY Federal Case (1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK) — Goldberg's Position
In the parallel federal Lanham Act case, NGM's opposition (DN 25, filed 10/10/2025 by Connell Foley LLP) argued that Litman consented, that USPTO filings aren't commercial speech, and raised laches and the arbitration clause. A Goldberg Declaration was filed separately in support of Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (not as part of DN 25; Exhibit C to DN 25 is text message excerpts). This declaration — a sworn statement by Goldberg — should be obtained and reviewed for additional admissions. NGM's federal arguments may also create inconsistencies with the state-court defense.
| Date | From | Key Language | Document ID |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 1, 2023 | Litman → Goldberg | "Just to be clear, the list of items in your email proposed as a basis for ending the arbitration were not agreed to by me at anytime." | C2051472_ND0000226842 |
| July 18, 2023 | Litman → Goldberg | "Although I did not agree to terminate my affiliation... We need to ensure there is no likelihood of confusion resulting from NGM's use of my name and affiliation with NGM post-termination." | C2051472_ND0000263307 |
| June 24, 2025 | Litman → Goldberg | "There is no basis without my consent that I should still be listed on USPTO filings associated with NGM, and the firm's continuing public representation of my affiliation with NGM — it has to stop... it is inappropriate and misleading. And actionable." | C2051472_ND0000264017 |
Additionally, a search of all 276,899 emails in Litman's archive returned zero emails showing consent to the continued use of his name on USPTO filings.
Client Notification Blocked — 5 Requests Over 4 Years (2021-2025)
Litman asked at least 5 times to notify institutional clients about his status. No notification was ever sent.
- July 2022: Goldberg acknowledged the need to notify clients — then did not follow through
- July 9, 2023: Litman drafted a complete client notification letter — it was never sent
- June 10, 2025: Litman asked for website removal. Goldberg responded with trust account ledgers instead
- Late July 2025: Auto-reply finally set up — but only after Litman threatened legal action, and the auto-reply itself continued to reference Litman's name
This pattern bears on whether Goldberg's continued use was inadvertent or deliberate. The record shows repeated requests to stop, met with inaction.
Text Messages (51 Pages, Dec 2018 – Jul 2025) — Zero POA Discussion
A complete review of 51 pages of text messages between Litman and Goldberg reveals zero discussion of Power of Attorney filings, Line 74 listings, or patent name use. The name use was entirely unilateral — never discussed, never authorized. Additional findings:
- January 30, 2023: Goldberg texted: "if you are on disability, what would be considered legal vs. fraud?" — consciousness of wrongdoing regarding Litman's "active" designation.
- December 23, 2024: "KFU is winding up with 631 patents this year" — confirms massive volume under Litman's name.
- June 13-16, 2025: Litman raises "use of my name" — Goldberg does not respond (adoptive admission under CPLR 4547).
Professional Liability Insurance — Contradictory Representations
Goldberg provided Litman a professional liability insurance certificate through 2022 identifying him as "Senior Counsel" — while NGM staff member Tanya Harkins stated in a May 21, 2021 email (CC'd to Goldberg): "he doesn't work here anymore." This suggests Goldberg was telling Litman he remained affiliated (to maintain use of the name) while internally acknowledging his departure.
October 8, 2025 — Staff First Told of Litman's Departure
NGM staff, including Martha Long, were not informed of Litman's departure from the firm until a staff meeting on October 8, 2025 — more than 5 years after Litman went on disability, and only after the lawsuit was filed (7/21/2025). The meeting was likely recorded on Microsoft Teams. Martha Long called Litman afterward to ask about Goldberg's announcement. This timeline bears on whether the continued use of Litman's name was inadvertent.
Additional Internal Knowledge Indicators
KSU collection emails from 2022 — including correspondence from Jerry Meyer — show Litman was still treated as having an active financial stake in client relationships. Text messages between Litman and Goldberg through the arbitration period, including a January 2023 settlement exchange, may contain additional admissions. These materials will be developed further in discovery.
| Category | Basis | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Compensatory — Revenue-Based | Damages tied to the economic value of the misappropriation, measured by the benefit obtained by defendant (Onassis v. Christian Dior; Lohan v. Take-Two Interactive) | $18.53M in fees collected under Litman's name (defendant's own records). 20% contractual share = $3.71M baseline. Billing records in discovery will establish precise figures. |
| Compensatory — Per-Patent | Each unauthorized publication is a separate actionable wrong (Binns v. Vitagraph; Stephano v. News Group Publications) | 905 issued patents, each a distinct publication. 206+ additional USPTO documents identified across 21 mapped applications. Each is a formal, public-facing government record. |
| Disgorgement | Equitable disgorgement where defendant profited from unauthorized use (Electra v. 59 Murray Enterprises) | Firm was 76-79% dependent on Litman-originated work. Revenue directly tied to the client relationships maintained under Litman's identity. Attribution analysis from defendant's records. |
| Loss of Control | Injury includes loss of control over one's name and identity, apart from economic loss (Messenger v. Gruner + Jahr) | 905 patents permanently bear Litman's name for work he did not review. Professional liability exposure for up to 20 years per patent. Website displayed his name through June 2025. |
| Exemplary Damages | § 51 permits exemplary damages for knowing or willful use (Binns; Onassis) | Post-arbitration use (all 34 Goldberg/Lafave acts); disability knowledge; three written objections ignored; client notification blocked 5 times over 4 years. The question of willfulness is addressed by the documentary record set out in Section C above. |
| Continuing Damages | Recovery for continuing violations through judgment | Patents continue to issue. Client relationships continue. Website use continued through June 2025. Damages accrue through judgment. |
The following ranges are based on defendant's own financial records (trust ledger, revenue workup, and RFA admissions), the statutory framework for compensatory, disgorgement, and exemplary damages, and three alternative methodologies. The trust ledger ($32.7M) is the most comprehensive record; per-patent revenue linkage is impossible given documented commingling (98% unlinkable), validating the "entire relationship" damages method. Interactive damages calculator →
| Scenario | Compensatory Basis | Punitive | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | Royalty at 10% of $24.5M post-SOL receipts ($2,450,925) | 1.5x ($3,676,388) | $6,127,313 |
| Moderate | Royalty at 20% ($4,901,850) + additional items ($4,790,569: shortfall, AR, arbitration award) | 2x ($19,385,238) | $29,077,657 |
| Full Recovery | Disgorgement of 80% of $24.5M ($19,607,400) | 3x ($58,822,200) | $78,429,600 |
| Additional Component | Amount | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Trust ledger total (all Litman dockets) | $32.7M | NGM trust ledger, June 26, 2025 |
| Post-6/15/2020 receipts | $24.5M | Trust ledger — SOL-period subset |
| $16.2M accounting gap | $16.2M | Trust ledger vs. Goldberg's revenue workup — unexplained |
| Outstanding AR (Litman-attributed) | $3.18M | Goldberg's June 2025 ledger |
| Total Pipeline (AR + WIP) | $10.5M | $8.9M AR + $1.58M WIP — all Litman-attributed. See forensic analysis → |
| Litman 20% Pipeline Entitlement | $2.1M | 20% of $10.5M pipeline — future revenue still flowing from his name |
| Unpaid shortfall | $1.47M | Payment reconciliation 2020-2023 |
| Arbitration award | $316,870 | Goldberg's own calculation spreadsheet |
These ranges are presented to illustrate the scope of exposure based on available evidence, not as a settlement demand. All dollar figures are derived from Goldberg's own financial records. The conservative figure uses minimal royalty attribution; the full theory reflects the documented 76-79% firm dependency on Litman-originated work and the statutory 3x punitive multiplier for knowing violations. Pre/post-judgment interest is additional. View revenue timeline →
| Factor | Affects | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| USPTO OED Referral | Goldberg + Lafave personally | Using another practitioner's name on federal filings without authorization raises questions under 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.801, 11.804 (dishonesty, misrepresentation). The evidence is already in public USPTO records — the PTOL-85B PDFs with Lafave's signature and Litman's name are self-authenticating government documents. |
| Potential Additional Defendant (Lafave) | NGM / Lafave | Plaintiff has not yet named Lafave. The evidence for his 18 personal acts is already gathered. Adding him would create independent defense costs, potential deposition conflicts between Goldberg and Lafave, and separate liability exposure — particularly for the dual-act application (18/379,906) where Lafave signed both the POA and the PTOL-85B. |
| Institutional Client Risk | NGM / Goldberg | KFU, KSU, KISR, and KNPC paid NGM for patent prosecution under Litman's name. If those clients learn through public litigation that their attorney of record had departed during prosecution, there are disclosure and client relationship implications. Settlement is private. A verdict is public record. |
| Discovery Trajectory | NGM / Goldberg | First-wave discovery will produce NGM billing records, K-1 distributions, the October 8, 2025 Teams recording of the staff meeting where Goldberg first announced Litman's departure (5+ years after the fact), professional liability insurance certificates (listing Litman as "Senior Counsel" through 2022), and internal communications bearing on knowledge and direction. Text messages between Goldberg and Litman through the arbitration period are also available. |
| Exemplary Damages Predicate | All defendants | NY Civil Rights Law § 51 permits exemplary damages for knowing use. All 30 combined Goldberg/Lafave personal acts occurred post-arbitration — after formal notice of the dispute over Litman's authority. This creates a record that bears on the willfulness question. |
| Lafave Deposition | Goldberg / Lafave | "Who told you to write Litman's name in Box 2?" If directed by Goldberg: implicates Goldberg in direct control. If Lafave acted independently: raises his own liability and questions about firm policy. The deposition record on this question will likely shape the damages analysis. |
Resolution Framework
- Monetary component — reflecting the revenue generated under Litman's name (billing records will establish the precise figure)
- Removal of Litman's name from Customer Number 37833 and any future USPTO filings
- Written confirmation that nathlaw.com no longer lists Litman in any professional capacity
- Non-disparagement and non-interference with Litman's existing or future client relationships
- Cooperation — acknowledgment of Litman's departure to institutional clients as appropriate
71 New Emails from Litman's Personal Gmail Accounts
Deep analysis of rclitman@gmail.com and related accounts produced 8 bombshell findings and 14 strong supporting items. Three independent clients confirm Litman's name drew business to NGM; Goldberg literally used Litman's email identity for procurement; and a written demand to remove Litman from the website was ignored for 11+ days.
Clients Drawn by Name
Dvorkin (Sept 2025): "solely because Richard Litman works with you." Bennington (July 2025): "a customer of Richard Litman's from way back." Albannai (Aug 2025): "East or west Richard is the best."
Q4 2025 Still Owed
Complete financial records through December 2025. Payments stopped May 2025. $246K outstanding in Q4 alone. "Seven figures owed" stated June 26, 2025.
Days Demand Ignored
June 10, 2025: Written demand to remove Litman from nathlaw.com website. Still listed as of June 21, 2025 (Wayback capture). Destroys implied consent.
Goldberg Using litman@4patent.com
September 2025: OpenGov procurement platform account activated for "Joshua Goldberg" using litman@4patent.com — Litman's personal email address. This is literal identity misappropriation: Goldberg conducted government business under Litman's email identity.
February 24, 2026
- Goldberg failed to appear for scheduled deposition
- Depositions due by June 2, 2026 per Scheduling Order
- Supports motion to compel if pattern continues
June 26, 2025
- "Seven figures owed" — quantifies the financial harm
- Litigation threat followed by email retaliation (July 18)
- Complete paper trail from demand to spoliation
Systematic Financial Irregularities — Independent Corroboration of $16.2M Gap
Deep forensic analysis of the trust ledger, AR reports, wire transfers, and invoice records reveals systemic mismanagement of Litman-attributed revenue. Three independent data sources now corroborate the $16.2M accounting gap. The trust account itself went negative by $415,426 on November 20, 2024 — meaning Goldberg was spending client escrow funds that did not exist.
Trust Overdraft
November 20, 2024. Trust accounts hold client escrow funds. An overdraft means Goldberg was spending money belonging to clients. Potential independent bar ethics violation.
Smoking Gun Invoices
$1,046,431 billed under Litman's name post-termination. Each invoice is a separate commercial use of the name directed to a paying client.
Pipeline Outstanding
$8.9M AR + $1.58M WIP — all attributed to Litman-originated work. At 20%, Litman's future entitlement is $2.1M.
| Finding | Amount | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| 66 Ghost Invoices | $559,805 | Invoices with no corresponding trust deposit — either fabricated or payments diverted outside trust accounting |
| $8.6M Lump-Sum Sweeps | $8.6M | Large wires with no docket reference — untraceable, consistent with commingling pattern |
| Zero-Overlap AR | $2.46M (646 dockets) | Entirely separate accounting stream not appearing in trust ledger |
| 2,833 KFU Dockets | 1,917 inventions | Full KFU portfolio scale — all Litman-originated, all generating revenue |
| KFU Penalties | $314,500 (2024) | Missed deadlines under Goldberg management — harms Litman's reputation |
| Greene Letter | Dec 28, 2022 | Goldberg's accountant proposed deducting Litman's share — deliberate scheme |
| KFU VP Demand | Dec 2, 2024 | 6 directives never fully answered — institutional dissatisfaction |
| July 2025 Attribution | 100% | Five years post-termination, 100% of collections still attributed to Litman |
Impact on Damages
The $10.5M pipeline represents ongoing future revenue still flowing from Litman's name. Combined with the $32.7M trust ledger and $41.8M total billings, the forensic evidence proves Litman's name is not merely historical — it is the active, current revenue engine for NGM. The 133 smoking gun invoices are each a separate § 51 commercial use, adding to the 905 patents, 206 USPTO documents, and ~24,526 client-facing emails.
Forensic Trust Analysis → Pipeline & Outstanding ($10.5M) → Exposure Analysis →
December 5, 2025 — Hon. Aaron D. Maslow, J.S.C.
Doc #60 — Goldberg's Motion to Dismiss: GRANTED as to Counts I-IV (accounting, constructive trust, unjust enrichment, fiduciary duty). DENIED as to Count V — misappropriation of name under NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51.
Doc #61 — Litman's Cross-Motion: GRANTED solely to the extent the misappropriation claim remains; otherwise DENIED.
Result: The surviving claim is Count V — the § 51 misappropriation claim. This is exactly the claim our patent evidence supports.
Court Reporter Transcript: OBTAINED — Full transcript of Judge Maslow's oral decision recovered from Gmail attachments (120525litman.pdf). Key findings: Gould (Goldberg's counsel) conceded Count V survives; court cited Turane v. MGN, LLC, 171 A.D.3d 835 (2d Dep't 2019) for LLC Law § 609 personal participation liability; pierce-the-veil discussion re Goldberg's personal liability.
Patent Facts Are Admitted in Goldberg's Pleading
Goldberg's Answer (Doc #65) admits the name appeared on patents (¶32, ¶72). His defense rests on procedural and consent grounds, not on disputing the patent facts themselves.
Case reassigned to Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C. | Open Scheduling Order PDF
| 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 | RECEIVED — contains "purely as a courtesy" admission |
| Bills of Particulars due | 04/02/2026 | DUE IN 5 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 | — |
Paragraphs mentioning patents: ¶3, ¶32, ¶33, ¶34, ¶35, ¶37, ¶38, ¶72, ¶74
| Para | Content | Evidence 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 |
| ¶3 | Litman's professional identity and reputation | Website evidence |
| ¶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; assignments |
| ¶74 | Damages | KFU/KSU accounting; fee estimates |
Court filings on file:
| Doc # | Document | |
|---|---|---|
| #15 | Second Amended Complaint | Open PDF |
| #19 | Goldberg's Affirmation (NO patent mention) | Open PDF |
| #41 | Litman's Affidavit (paras 18-24: 467 KFU patents) | Open PDF |
| #60 | Decision/Order — Motion to Dismiss | Open PDF |
| #61 | Decision/Order — Cross-Motion | Open PDF |
| #65 | Goldberg's Answer — contains admissions at ¶32, ¶72 | Open PDF |
| #68 | Goldberg's BOP Demand | Open PDF |
| #69 | Litman's BOP Demand | Open PDF |
| #70 | Scheduling Order (Judge Gotlieb) | Open PDF |
| — | Goldberg's BOP Response (Feb. 26, 2026) — contains "purely as a courtesy" admission | Gmail recovery |
| — | Goldberg's RFA Responses (Feb. 17, 2026) — evasive; multiple self-contradictions | Gmail recovery |
| — | EDNY PI Opposition (DN 25, Oct. 10, 2025) — "because of the revenue share" admission | Gmail recovery |
| — | Court Reporter Transcript (12/05/2025 oral decision) | OBTAINED — 120525litman.pdf |
| — | Arbitration Award (June 14, 2023, Hon. Thomas D. Horne, Ret.) | Gmail recovery |
| — | Combination Agreement + Amendment (2017) — zero name-use provisions | Gmail recovery |