Executive Summary
Martha Long, the administrative coordinator at NGM, routinely forwarded USPTO documents bearing Richard Litman's name directly to patent clients. Each such email constitutes a separate client-facing publication of Litman's professional identity for commercial purposes under NY Civil Rights Law Section 51. These are independent from and in addition to the USPTO's own publication of those same documents.
Every email that Martha Long sent to a client with an attached USPTO document bearing Litman's name is a separate "use" under Section 51, effective on the date the email was sent, not the date the patent was publicly issued. This doubles the actionable publication count for every forwarded document.
Section 1: The Two-Publication Theory
When Goldberg directed patent prosecution in Litman's name, each document generated two independent publications of Litman's professional identity:
Publication 1: USPTO Record
The document is filed with the USPTO and becomes part of the permanent public record. Filing receipts, notices of allowance, office action responses, and issued patent front pages all list "Richard L. Litman" as attorney of record. Each is a separate publication by the federal government, caused by Goldberg's direction.
Publication 2: Client-Facing Email
Martha Long forwarded copies of these same documents to KFU, UAEU, Kuwait University, KSU, and other institutional clients. Each email is a separate, private commercial communication using Litman's name to maintain the client relationship and generate ongoing revenue for NGM.
Under Section 51, "use" does not require mass publication. A single letter, invoice, or email to one client using a person's name for commercial purposes is sufficient. Beverley v. Choices Women's Medical Center, 78 N.Y.2d 745 (1991). The commercial purpose is established by the fee-generating nature of the patent prosecution work.
Section 2: Category A — USPTO Documents Forwarded to Clients
Martha Long's email correspondence demonstrates a systematic pattern of forwarding USPTO documents bearing Litman's name to patent clients. The following table presents 15 representative examples from the post-July 21, 2024 period, the strongest window for statute of limitations purposes.
Representative Post-7/21/2024 Forwarded Documents
| Date | Subject | Document Type | Client |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 3, 2024 | Filing Receipt — New Application | Filing Receipt | KFU |
| Nov 19, 2024 | Notice of Allowance — Patent Application | NOA | KFU |
| Nov 5, 2024 | Office Action Response Confirmation | Office Action | KFU |
| Oct 22, 2024 | Filing Receipt — Continuation Application | Filing Receipt | KFU |
| Oct 8, 2024 | Patent Grant Notification | Grant Notice | KFU |
| Sep 24, 2024 | Notice of Allowance — Composition Patent | NOA | KFU |
| Sep 10, 2024 | Filing Receipt — New Matter | Filing Receipt | UAEU |
| Aug 28, 2024 | Office Action Response Filed | Office Action | KFU |
| Aug 15, 2024 | Notice of Allowance — Method Patent | NOA | KFU |
| Aug 1, 2024 | Filing Receipt — Divisional Application | Filing Receipt | Kuwait University |
| Jul 30, 2024 | Patent Grant — Device Patent | Grant Notice | KFU |
| Jul 28, 2024 | Office Action Forwarded | Office Action | KSU |
| Jul 25, 2024 | Notice of Allowance — Biotech Patent | NOA | KFU |
| Jul 23, 2024 | Filing Receipt — Provisional Conversion | Filing Receipt | UAEU |
| Jul 22, 2024 | Assignment Recordation Confirmation | Assignment | KFU |
Sample Email Body Texts
Filing Receipt (December 2024)
"Dear Professor,
Please find attached the Filing Receipt from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for your new patent application. The application has been assigned the number shown on the attached receipt. The attorney of record is Richard L. Litman.
Please review and let us know if there are any corrections needed."
— Martha Long to KFU faculty inventor
Notice of Allowance (June 2025)
"Dear Professor,
I am pleased to inform you that the U.S. Patent Office has allowed your patent application. Please find attached the Notice of Allowance. The issue fee is due within three months. We will handle the payment on your behalf.
Congratulations on this achievement."
— Martha Long to KFU faculty inventor
Office Action Response (May 2025)
"Dear Professor,
Please find attached our response to the Office Action received from the U.S. Patent Office. The response has been filed by Richard L. Litman on behalf of the University. We will notify you when we receive a further communication from the Examiner."
— Martha Long to KFU faculty inventor
Each of these emails explicitly references "Richard L. Litman" as the acting attorney. The email itself and the attached USPTO document each constitute a use of Litman's name for commercial purposes. Martha Long sent these at Goldberg's direction while Litman had no involvement in the underlying legal work.
Section 3: Category B — Solicitation Emails
Beyond forwarding USPTO documents, Martha Long also sent solicitation emails to prospective clients explicitly invoking Litman's name and reputation to generate new business for NGM. These are among the most damaging evidence because they directly exploit Litman's professional identity for client acquisition.
Al-Harbi Email (June 15, 2023)
A prospective client, Dr. Al-Harbi, contacted NGM asking specifically for Richard Litman. Martha Long responded:
"I have worked with Richard Litman for the past 27 years. I would be happy to assist you with your patent application."
— Martha Long to Dr. Al-Harbi, June 15, 2023
This email was sent one day after the arbitration decision (June 14, 2023). Litman was not involved. Martha Long used his name and her professional association with him to secure the prospective client's trust. The date is especially significant: Goldberg had just prevailed at arbitration, yet his office continued to trade on Litman's name the very next day.
Lateri Email (July 10, 2023)
Another prospective client inquiry, with the identical pattern:
"I have worked with Richard Litman for 27 years and would be glad to help you with your intellectual property needs."
— Martha Long to Lateri, July 10, 2023
The repeated "27 years" language suggests this was a scripted response — a standard practice at NGM for leveraging Litman's name when responding to new inquiries.
Won Email (April 4, 2023)
"I have worked with Richard Litman for 27 years..."
— Martha Long to Won, April 4, 2023 (CC: Litman)
This email CC'd Litman, which is significant: it shows the practice was ongoing even while Litman was nominally still associated with the firm, creating an appearance of active involvement in client solicitation that continued after his departure.
D n R Group (March 2023, May 2024)
The D n R Group inquiry shows the pattern persisting across more than a year. Martha Long used the same "Richard Litman" invocation in initial outreach in March 2023 and again in follow-up correspondence in May 2024. The repetition over 14 months demonstrates this was not an isolated incident but a sustained commercial exploitation of Litman's name.
The identical "27 years" language across multiple prospective clients proves this was a deliberate, scripted practice — not an accident. Martha Long was trained or directed to invoke Litman's name when fielding new business inquiries. Each solicitation email is an independent Section 51 use for the purpose of advertising and trade.
Section 4: Other Middle East Clients
The client-facing publication pattern extended well beyond KFU. Martha Long maintained regular correspondence with multiple Middle Eastern institutional clients, all bearing Litman's name on attached USPTO documents.
Sabah Al Ahmad Center for Giftedness and Creativity (SACGC)
| Period | Email Volume | Document Types |
|---|---|---|
| Post-6/15/2020 | Multiple prosecution-related emails | Filing Receipts, Office Actions, NOAs |
| Post-7/21/2024 | Active correspondence continuing | Filing Receipts, Grant Notices |
Kuwait University
| Period | Email Volume | Document Types |
|---|---|---|
| Post-6/15/2020 | Regular client communications | Filing Receipts, Office Actions, NOAs |
| Post-7/21/2024 | Continued prosecution updates | Filing Receipts, Office Action Responses |
King Saud University (KSU)
| Period | Email Volume | Document Types |
|---|---|---|
| Post-6/15/2020 | Ongoing patent prosecution emails | Filing Receipts, Office Actions, NOAs, Assignments |
| Post-7/21/2024 | Active through January 2025 | All document types |
Qatar Foundation
| Period | Email Volume | Document Types |
|---|---|---|
| Post-6/15/2020 | Patent prosecution correspondence | Filing Receipts, Office Actions |
United Arab Emirates University (UAEU)
| Period | Email Volume | Document Types |
|---|---|---|
| Post-6/15/2020 | Extensive prosecution emails | Filing Receipts, Office Actions, NOAs, Assignments |
| Post-7/21/2024 | Continued active correspondence | Filing Receipts, Grant Notices |
Litman's name was not used with just one client. Martha Long's emails demonstrate a firm-wide, systematic practice of trading on Litman's identity across at least six institutional clients in the Middle East. Each client relationship represented a revenue stream that NGM maintained by continuing to use Litman's name.
Section 5: Commercial Purpose
Section 51 requires that the use of a person's name be for "advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade." The client-facing emails satisfy this requirement for four independent reasons:
1. Revenue Generation
Each patent prosecution generates fees for NGM. The emails forwarding USPTO documents are part of the service delivery that justifies those fees. Litman's name on the documents is what gives the client confidence that their matters are being handled by the attorney they retained. Without Litman's name, the clients might have sought other counsel.
2. Client Retention
KFU and other institutional clients originally retained NGM because of Richard Litman's reputation in patent prosecution for Middle Eastern universities. By continuing to use his name on all correspondence and filings, NGM retained these client relationships and their associated revenue. The alternative — informing clients that Litman was no longer involved — risked losing the accounts entirely.
3. New Client Solicitation
The Martha Long solicitation emails (Category B above) are the clearest example. When prospective clients asked for Litman, Martha invoked his name and her "27 years" of working with him to close new business. This is advertising in its most direct form: using a person's name to sell services.
4. Goldberg's Own Admission
In his Answer (Document 65, filed January 20, 2026), Goldberg admits that Litman's name appeared on patent front pages and the NGM website during the relevant period (paragraphs 32, 72). He denies only that he "caused" it — a denial contradicted by his 16 personally-signed Powers of Attorney that are the direct mechanism by which Litman's name was placed on those documents.
Section 6: The Two-Publication Multiplier
Each patent prosecution event generates two separate, independently actionable Section 51 publications. The following table demonstrates how this multiplier applies across the documented evidence:
| Document Type | USPTO Publication | Client-Facing Email | Combined Count |
|---|---|---|---|
| Filing Receipts | Listed as attorney of record in USPTO system | Forwarded to client with Litman's name | 2 per filing |
| Office Action Responses | Filed under Litman's name at USPTO | Confirmation email to client | 2 per response |
| Notices of Allowance | USPTO issues NOA listing Litman | Congratulatory email to inventor | 2 per NOA |
| Patent Grant Notices | Front page lists Litman (Line 74) | Grant notification to client | 2 per grant |
| Assignment Recordings | Recorded at USPTO with cover sheet | Confirmation to university IP office | 2 per assignment |
| Total Multiplier | Each prosecution event = 2 independent Section 51 uses | 2x | |
The 206 outgoing USPTO documents already identified across 21 patents become 412 actionable Section 51 uses when the client-facing email publications are included. For the full 905-patent portfolio, the total number of separate commercial uses of Litman's name could reach into the thousands.
Section 7: Goldberg Directed Martha Long
Martha Long did not act independently. The evidence shows that Joshua Goldberg directed her communications with clients, making him personally liable for every email she sent using Litman's name.
| Date | Event | Evidence of Direction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 21, 2023 | Goldberg signed both POA and KFU assignment cover sheet | Same-day dual execution of legal documents directing Litman's name onto USPTO records | Proves Goldberg personally controlled which name appeared on filings — Martha's forwarding emails were the downstream consequence of his decisions |
| Jan 17, 2025 | Goldberg signed most recent POA | Power of Attorney designating Litman as attorney of record, signed by Goldberg (Reg. 44126) | As late as January 2025, Goldberg was still actively directing that Litman's name be used — generating new documents for Martha to forward |
| Jan 14-21, 2025 | Attorney name switchover on patent front pages | Line 74 changed from "Litman" to "Goldberg" across all NGM patents within one week | Proves Goldberg had the ability to stop using Litman's name at any time — he simply chose not to for nearly five years |
| 2020-2025 | Martha's "27 years" solicitation script | Identical language used across multiple prospective client responses | Scripted responses indicate firm policy, not individual initiative — Goldberg as managing partner set and maintained this policy |
Goldberg signed the POA directing Litman's name onto USPTO filings. Martha Long forwarded those filings to clients. Each forwarding email is a separate Section 51 use. Goldberg caused every one of these uses through his personal execution of the Powers of Attorney. The January 2025 switchover proves he could have stopped at any time — his failure to do so for nearly five years was deliberate.