DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FOR JOSHUA B. GOLDBERG
Case: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 (NY Sup. Ct., Kings County)
Claim: Count V — NY Civil Rights Law Sections 50-51 (Misappropriation of Name)
Deposition Deadline: June 2, 2026
Prepared: March 23, 2026
HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
Each question block follows a three-step structure:
- FOUNDATION -- Establish the fact from a document Goldberg cannot deny
- PIN -- Hand him the exhibit and force a specific admission
- CLOSE -- Extract the damaging conclusion
The exhibit reference is noted for each question so the examining attorney knows which document to hand the witness. Do not skip the foundation step -- it prevents Goldberg from wiggling out later by claiming he "doesn't recall."
I. POWER OF ATTORNEY -- GOLDBERG PERSONALLY CAUSED LITMAN'S NAME TO APPEAR
Theory: Goldberg signed 16 of 17 POAs personally (Reg. 44126), each one designating Customer Number 37833 and listing Litman as attorney of record. This is the direct causal link proving he "caused" Litman's name to appear on patents -- which he denies in his Answer at paragraph 33.
1.1
Question 1.1 -- Establish Registration Number
Q: Mr. Goldberg, you are a registered patent attorney with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, correct?
Q: Your registration number is 44126, correct?
Q: And you have held that registration number continuously since it was issued to you?
Q: When you sign a PTO/AIA/82A form -- a Power of Attorney Transmittal -- with your registration number, that is your personal act as a registered practitioner, correct?
Q: No one else can sign using registration number 44126, can they?
Exhibit Reference: Any POA PDF (e.g., (see exhibit binder))
1.2
Question 1.2 -- The September 5, 2023 POA (83 Days Post-Arbitration)
Q: I'm handing you what has been marked as Exhibit ___. This is a PTO/AIA/82A form for Application 18/242,465, dated September 5, 2023. Do you recognize this document?
Q: The signature line reads "/Joshua B. Goldberg/" with registration number 44126. That is your signature, correct?
Q: This form designates Customer Number 37833 as the correspondence address. Customer Number 37833 belongs to Nath, Goldberg & Meyer, correct?
Q: And the result of filing this form is that Richard C. Litman appeared as attorney of record on the resulting patent -- US 12,043,608, issued July 23, 2024. You understand that?
Q: The arbitration decision was issued on June 14, 2023. You were aware of that decision when you signed this form on September 5, 2023, weren't you?
Q: So 83 days after the arbitration, you personally signed a federal form that caused Richard Litman's name to appear on a United States patent. Is that correct?
Exhibit Reference: (OCR-verified, clearest image set)
1.3
Question 1.3 -- The December 21, 2023 Dual-Action Day
Q: I'm handing you Exhibit ___. This is a PTO/AIA/82A form for Application 18/392,663, dated December 21, 2023. That is your signature -- "/Joshua B. Goldberg/", registration number 44126?
Q: Now I'm handing you Exhibit ___. This is a Patent Assignment Cover Sheet for the same application, 18/392,663, also dated December 21, 2023. The signatory is "/Joshua B. Goldberg/" and the correspondence email is jgoldberg@nathlaw.com. That is also your signature and your email address?
Q: The correspondent block on this assignment cover sheet reads "RICHARD C. LITMAN, NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER." You see that?
Q: So on a single day -- December 21, 2023 -- you personally signed two separate federal documents for the same patent application, both of which caused Richard Litman's name to appear in official government records. Is that fair to say?
Q: December 21, 2023 was 190 days after the arbitration decision. You were fully aware of the arbitration outcome at that time?
Q: Did you ask Mr. Litman for permission to put his name on these documents before you signed them?
Q: Did you notify Mr. Litman that you had signed these documents?
Exhibits: +
1.4
Question 1.4 -- The Full Pattern (16 POAs)
Q: I'm going to hand you a table. This lists 16 patent applications where you personally signed the PTO/AIA/82A Power of Attorney form between March 2023 and January 2025. [Hand him POA_GOLDBERG_SIGNATURE_TABLE.md exhibit version.] Do you dispute that you signed any of these?
Q: Fourteen of these sixteen were signed after the June 14, 2023 arbitration decision. You agree with that count?
Q: In every single one, Customer Number 37833 was designated -- routing all USPTO correspondence to your firm, Nath, Goldberg & Meyer?
Q: And in every single one, the resulting patent lists Richard C. Litman on Line 74 as attorney of record?
Q: Can you point to a single document in which Mr. Litman authorized you to sign any of these 16 POAs on his behalf?
Q: Can you point to a single document in which Mr. Litman consented to his name appearing on any of these patents?
Exhibit Reference: (formatted as exhibit)
1.5
Question 1.5 -- Goldberg Understood the POA Mechanism
Q: I'm showing you an email you sent to Martha Long on January 17, 2023. [Hand exhibit.] You wrote: "Since we are the attorneys of record and the POA was signed by SACGC, he is not really permitted to contact the inventor at this stage. Either a withdrawal of our Power of Attorney, or some other document transferring rights back to the inventor, needs to be filed." You wrote that?
Q: So you understood that a POA filing locks in who the attorney of record is at the USPTO?
Q: You understood that until a withdrawal is filed, the attorney named in the POA remains the attorney of record on the application and the resulting patent?
Q: And between March 2023 and January 2025, you filed 16 POAs that locked in Richard Litman's name as the attorney of record. You never filed a withdrawal for any of them, did you?
Exhibit Reference: Email C2051472_ND0000271155.msg (Jan 17, 2023, Goldberg to Martha Long)
1.6
Question 1.6 -- Post-Arbitration POA Strategy
Q: Five days after the arbitration decision -- on June 19, 2023 -- you sent an email to Martha Long about a KNPC Power of Attorney. The subject line is "RE: Power of Attorney for KNPC Application -- Docket 33060.73U." You wrote: "Yes, it is fine to send the POA to the client after the application is filed so the serial number can be included on the POA, then file the POA when we get it back. There are no additional official fees for doing it this way." You wrote that?
Q: So five days after the arbitration decision, you were still directing your staff on how to file Powers of Attorney -- POAs that would list Richard Litman as the attorney?
Q: At that point you knew the arbitration was decided, you knew Mr. Litman's position, and you still directed the filing of POAs with his name on them?
Exhibit Reference: Email C2051472_ND0000247121.msg (June 19, 2023, Goldberg to Martha Long)
II. CONSENT -- LITMAN NEVER GAVE IT
Theory: Zero emails out of 276,899 show Litman consenting. Multiple emails show explicit non-consent. Sections 50-51 require "written consent."
2.1
Question 2.1 -- "Not Agreed To By Me at Anytime"
Q: I'm handing you Exhibit ___. This is an email from Richard Litman to you dated May 1, 2023, with the subject "Re: Thoughts." In it, Mr. Litman writes: "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." You received that email?
Q: He also wrote: "I object to the assertion in your email that the combination agreement has been terminated." You see that?
Q: And he wrote: "I haven't said 'no' to your proposal, but the repeated false assertion that the agreement was terminated in 2020 doesn't fit a continuing relationship as we discussed." You see that?
Q: This email was sent on May 1, 2023 -- six weeks before the arbitration decision. At the time you received it, did you understand that Mr. Litman was not agreeing to your proposals?
Q: Between May 1, 2023 and June 14, 2023 -- the date of the arbitration decision -- you continued to file patent applications listing Mr. Litman as attorney of record, didn't you?
Exhibit Reference: Email C2051472_ND0000226842.msg (May 1, 2023, Litman to Goldberg)
2.2
Question 2.2 -- "No Basis Without My Consent" (The Smoking Gun)
Q: I'm handing you Exhibit ___. This is an email from Richard Litman to you dated June 24, 2025, with the subject "Decision re COBRA." Do you recognize it?
Q: Mr. Litman wrote: "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, especially in view of the arbitration ruling by Judge Horne -- it is inappropriate and misleading. And actionable." Did you read those words when you received this email?
Q: He also wrote: "You can't have it both ways. If I'm being removed from the benefits, the public-facing use of my name and affiliation should end as well." You read that?
Q: After receiving this email on June 24, 2025, what steps did you take to remove Mr. Litman's name from USPTO filings?
Q: After receiving this email, what steps did you take to remove Mr. Litman from the nathlaw.com website?
Q: The website continued to list Mr. Litman as "PATENT ATTORNEY" through at least June 21, 2025, and he was not removed from the professionals page until sometime after that. Is that consistent with your recollection?
Q: So even after Mr. Litman explicitly told you he had not consented and demanded that you stop, his name continued to appear on your website and on USPTO records?
Exhibit Reference: Email C2051472_ND0000264017.msg (June 24, 2025, Litman to Goldberg)
2.3
Question 2.3 -- "I Did Not Agree to Terminate My Affiliation"
Q: I'm showing you an email from Mr. Litman to you dated July 18, 2023 -- 34 days after the arbitration decision. The subject is "Re: Please follow up." Mr. Litman wrote: "Although I did not agree to terminate my affiliation with or wane in my endorsement of and support for NGM over the last three years, NGM vehemently argued in the arbitration the combination ended three years ago and the Judge agreed with NGM's position that it was like I was dead as of June 15, 2020." You received this email?
Q: He also wrote: "We need to ensure there is no likelihood of confusion resulting from NGM's use of my name and affiliation with NGM post-termination. We need to reach an agreement about notifying clients." You read that?
Q: So 34 days after the arbitration, Mr. Litman explicitly told you there needed to be an agreement about your use of his name. Did you reach any such agreement?
Q: Did you ever notify clients that Mr. Litman was no longer affiliated with the firm?
Exhibit Reference: Email C2051472_ND0000263307.msg (July 18, 2023, Litman to Goldberg)
2.4
Question 2.4 -- "Our Communications Should Not Be Interpreted as Agreeing to Anything"
Q: On January 10, 2023, Mr. Litman emailed you about a $694,478.67 wire transfer. In that email he wrote: "Bob Scully is my counsel. He is proceeding as quickly as possible with the arbitration. Our communications should not be interpreted as agreeing to anything." Did you receive that?
Q: Did you understand that to mean Mr. Litman was not consenting to anything through his emails with you?
Q: And yet, between January 2023 and January 2025, you signed 16 POAs listing Mr. Litman as attorney of record. You did not treat his explicit reservation of rights as a reason to stop, did you?
Exhibit Reference: Email from Litman to Goldberg, Jan 9-10, 2023, re "$694,478.67 Wire Transfer"
2.5
Question 2.5 -- Formal Legal Objection to NGM's Attorney
Q: On June 28, 2025, Mr. Litman sent a letter to Heba Carter, your firm's lawyer. The subject was "Continued Use of My Name and Role as Senior Counsel (2017-2025)." In it, he wrote: "Your client continued to publicly and professionally present me as Senior Counsel continuously from April 2017 through June 2025, five years after the termination date you represented." He listed four categories of unauthorized use and reserved "all rights and remedies available to me under law and equity." Were you made aware of this letter?
Q: After your lawyer received this letter, what did you do to stop using Mr. Litman's name?
Exhibit Reference: Email C2051472_ND0000264022.msg (June 28, 2025, Litman to Heba Carter)
2.6
Question 2.6 -- "Please Have Your Clients Remove Immediately"
Q: On July 10, 2025, Mr. Litman emailed you and wrote: "Please have your clients remove immediately and not destroy or conceal archival records showing NGM's use of my image, name and status as Senior Counsel." You received that email?
Q: What did you do in response to that demand?
Q: Did you remove Mr. Litman's name from your website immediately?
Q: Did you file any withdrawals of Power of Attorney at the USPTO for pending applications listing Mr. Litman?
Exhibit Reference: Email from Litman to Goldberg, July 10, 2025
III. CLIENT NOTIFICATION -- GOLDBERG BLOCKED IT
Theory: Litman asked at least five times between 2021 and 2025 for clients to be notified that he was no longer with the firm. Goldberg agreed in words but never followed through, because notifying clients would have ended the use of Litman's name -- and the revenue it generated.
3.1
Question 3.1 -- "Good Thoughts, I'll Start a List"
Q: In July 2022, Mr. Litman asked you to notify clients that he was no longer affiliated with the firm. Your response was: "Good thoughts, I'll start a list." Do you recall that?
Q: Did you ever start that list?
Q: Did you ever send a single notification to a single client telling them that Richard Litman was no longer with the firm?
Exhibit Reference: July 2022 email, Goldberg to Litman (from client notification email search)
3.2
Question 3.2 -- The July 2023 Draft Letter That Was Never Sent
Q: In July 2023, Mr. Litman drafted a client notification letter to be sent to your mutual clients -- informing them of his departure from the firm. You are aware of that draft?
Q: Was that letter ever sent to any client?
Q: Who made the decision not to send it?
Q: Is it fair to say that between July 2023 and the filing of this lawsuit, not a single client was notified that Mr. Litman was no longer affiliated with your firm?
Exhibit Reference: July 2023 draft client notification letter (from Litman's files)
3.3
Question 3.3 -- KSU Asked for Confirmation (May 2025)
Q: In May 2025, King Saud University requested an official letter confirming that "NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER has acquired LITMAN LAW OFFICES." Were you aware of that request?
Q: As of May 2025, your own client believed that Litman Law Offices still existed and that your firm had acquired it. Is that a fair reading of their request?
Q: That belief existed because you had never told them otherwise, isn't that true?
Exhibit Reference: May 2025 KSU email requesting official confirmation (from post-arbitration email search)
3.4
Question 3.4 -- June 10, 2025 -- Website Removal Ignored
Q: On June 10, 2025, Mr. Litman asked you to take him off the nathlaw.com website. What did you do in response?
Q: Rather than address his request, you sent him trust ledgers. Is that correct?
Q: How long after his June 10, 2025 request did it take for his profile to actually be removed from the website?
Exhibit Reference: June 10, 2025 email, Litman to Goldberg (from website listing emails)
IV. FINANCIAL MOTIVE -- GOLDBERG PROFITED FROM LITMAN'S NAME
Theory: Goldberg collected approximately $18.4 million under Litman's name from 2020-2025. Litman received only $725K of $3.68M owed -- a 20% share. Keeping Litman's name on patents was commercially motivated.
4.1
Question 4.1 -- The Revenue
Q: Between 2020 and 2025, approximately how much revenue did NGM collect from patent prosecution matters where Richard Litman was listed as attorney of record?
Q: Is $18.4 million approximately correct?
Q: What percentage of NGM's total revenue during that period came from matters where Mr. Litman was listed as the attorney?
Q: During that same period, how much did Mr. Litman personally receive from the firm?
Q: Is it correct that Mr. Litman received approximately $725,000 out of approximately $3.68 million owed to him -- roughly 20 percent?
4.2
Question 4.2 -- Goldberg's Personal Income
Q: What was your personal income from NGM in 2023?
Q: In 2024?
Q: Is it fair to say you personally earned between $76,000 and $236,000 per month from work attributed to clients that Mr. Litman originated?
4.3
Question 4.3 -- Outstanding Receivables Under Litman's Name
Q: As of June 2025, how much was outstanding in accounts receivable attributed to work done under Mr. Litman's name?
Q: Is $3.18 million approximately correct?
Q: Those receivables were for legal services rendered under Mr. Litman's name by your firm, correct?
4.4
Question 4.4 -- "The Money Due"
Q: In November 2024, Mr. Litman emailed you: "Josh, I would appreciate the money due through October and the reports you have." You received that?
Q: In December 2024, Mr. Litman wrote again: "Josh, Would appreciate the money and reports for last month." You received that?
Q: While Mr. Litman was begging you for money owed to him, you were continuing to file patent applications using his name and collecting revenue from his clients. Is that accurate?
Exhibit Reference: Nov-Dec 2024 emails, Litman to Goldberg (from financial emails)
4.5
Question 4.5 -- The $214,532 Service Mark Purchase
Q: In 2017, NGM paid $214,532 to acquire the "Litman Law Offices" service mark. Is that correct?
Q: You considered the Litman name to have commercial value, or you would not have paid $214,532 for it. Is that fair to say?
Q: After acquiring the service mark, you continued to use the Litman name in connection with patent prosecution services, correct?
4.6
Question 4.6 -- "No, We Do Not Intend to Close" Litman Law Offices
Q: In June 2024, you told the Virginia State Bar: "No, we do not intend to close this entity" -- referring to Litman Law Offices. Is that correct?
Q: Why did you want to keep the Litman Law Offices entity open after Mr. Litman's departure?
Q: Was it because the Litman name had commercial value to your firm?
Exhibit Reference: June 2024 Virginia State Bar communication (from post-arbitration email search)
V. WEBSITE -- COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING OF LITMAN'S NAME
Theory: nathlaw.com listed Litman as "PATENT ATTORNEY" (not retired, not former) through at least June 21, 2025. This is classic commercial advertising under Sections 50-51.
5.1
Question 5.1 -- The Website Listing
Q: Your firm maintained a website at nathlaw.com, correct?
Q: That website included a profile page for Richard Litman at nathlaw.com/richard-c-litman/?
Q: That page listed him as "RICHARD C. LITMAN, PATENT ATTORNEY" -- not retired, not former, not emeritus?
Q: That listing was available to the public -- including potential clients -- through at least June 21, 2025?
Exhibit Reference: (Wayback Machine screenshot)
5.2
Question 5.2 -- The Headshot Request (April 2024)
Q: In April 2024, someone at your firm asked Mr. Litman for a new headshot for the website. Is that correct?
Q: Why was your firm updating Mr. Litman's photo on the website if he was no longer affiliated with the firm?
Q: The purpose of putting Mr. Litman's photo and credentials on the website was to attract clients, wasn't it?
Exhibit Reference: April 2024 headshot request email
5.3
Question 5.3 -- Controlled Removal
Q: Mr. Litman's profile was removed from the website sometime between June 21, 2025 and September 5, 2025. Is that consistent with your recollection?
Q: Who made the decision to remove it?
Q: Why was it removed at that time and not earlier -- for example, after the arbitration in June 2023?
Q: The word "Retired" was briefly added to his profile and then his profile was removed entirely. Who directed those changes?
5.4
Question 5.4 -- richardlitman.com Domain Control
Q: You controlled the domain richardlitman.com, correct?
Q: What was the purpose of controlling a domain bearing Mr. Litman's personal name?
Q: Did you ever ask Mr. Litman's permission to use his personal name as a domain name?
VI. INSURANCE AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS -- GOLDBERG KNEW LITMAN WAS NOT ACTIVE
Theory: Goldberg kept Litman on the payroll and insurance through June 2025 while simultaneously filing patent documents under his name -- proving he controlled Litman's professional identity and was aware Litman was not actively practicing.
6.1
Question 6.1 -- "Active Employee vs. Retired/Disabled"
Q: I'm showing you an email you sent to Mr. Litman on March 15, 2022. You wrote: "The question all comes down to whether you will be an active employee vs. on disability/retired. If you are an active employee, we have no problems keeping you on our insurance." You wrote that?
Q: As of March 2022, you did not know whether Mr. Litman was active, disabled, or retired. Is that a fair reading?
Q: If you did not know whether Mr. Litman was an active employee, on what basis were you filing patent applications listing him as attorney of record?
Exhibit Reference: Email C2051472_ND0000270640.msg (March 15, 2022, Goldberg to Litman)
6.2
Question 6.2 -- Malpractice Insurance
Q: In August 2020, you confirmed that your malpractice insurance through Markel covered Mr. Litman. Correct?
Q: Was Mr. Litman listed as a covered attorney on the Markel policy?
Q: If Mr. Litman was covered by the firm's malpractice insurance, the firm was representing to the insurer that he was performing legal work under the firm's umbrella. Isn't that right?
Q: Was he actually performing legal work at that time?
Exhibit Reference: August 2020 insurance email, Goldberg to Litman
6.3
Question 6.3 -- Payroll Through June 30, 2025
Q: Mr. Litman remained on the firm's payroll through June 30, 2025. Is that correct?
Q: As of January 2025, he was still electing Employee + Spouse benefits through the firm?
Q: If Mr. Litman was on your payroll and receiving benefits, would it be fair to say you were maintaining the appearance that he was affiliated with the firm -- even though he was not performing patent prosecution work?
VII. THIRD-PARTY PERCEPTION -- THE WORLD THOUGHT LITMAN WAS STILL THERE
Theory: Third parties -- clients, USPTO examiners, and even NGM employees -- believed Litman was still active at the firm. This proves the misappropriation was effective: Goldberg's use of Litman's name actually deceived the public.
7.1
Question 7.1 -- "He Doesn't Work Here Anymore" (May 2021)
Q: I'm showing you an email from Tanya Harkins to Martha Long, dated May 21, 2021. You were CC'd on this email. Ms. Harkins -- who had worked at your firm for 20 years -- wrote: "This is not Litman. I would have never worked for him and he doesn't work here anymore." You were CC'd on this email and read it?
Q: So by May 2021, your own 20-year employee understood that Mr. Litman did not work at the firm. You were aware of that understanding?
Q: And yet, between May 2021 and March 2024, you signed at least 16 Powers of Attorney listing Mr. Litman as the attorney of record. How do you reconcile that?
Exhibit Reference: Email C2051472_ND0000270307.msg (May 21, 2021, Harkins to Long, CC Goldberg)
7.2
Question 7.2 -- Kuwait University Called You "Litman's Office"
Q: In September 2020, Kuwait University referred to NGM as "Litman's office" in correspondence. Were you aware of that?
Q: Did you correct them?
Q: If you did not correct a major client's understanding that they were dealing with "Litman's office," would it be fair to say you allowed the misperception to continue?
Exhibit Reference: September 2020 Kuwait University email
7.3
Question 7.3 -- USPTO Examiner Addressed "Mr. Litman and Mr. Goldberg"
Q: In March 2024, a USPTO patent examiner addressed correspondence to "Mr. Litman and Mr. Goldberg." Were you aware of that?
Q: The examiner believed Mr. Litman was the attorney on the case because that is what the POA filing -- the POA you signed -- told the examiner. Correct?
Q: Did you inform the examiner that Mr. Litman was not involved in the prosecution?
Exhibit Reference: March 2024 USPTO examiner correspondence (from post-arbitration email search)
7.4
Question 7.4 -- Customer Number 37833 Description
Q: In May 2025, Customer Number 37833 was described in USPTO records as belonging to "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer/Litman Law Offices." Were you aware of that?
Q: Who maintained the description associated with Customer Number 37833?
Q: As of May 2025, the USPTO itself associated your firm's customer number with Mr. Litman's name. That was a consequence of the POAs you filed, wasn't it?
Exhibit Reference: May 2025 reference to CN-37833 description (from post-arbitration email search)
7.5
Question 7.5 -- Auto-Reply (July 2025)
Q: Sometime around July 2025, an auto-reply was installed on Mr. Litman's email stating: "Richard Litman is no longer with the organization. If you need immediate assistance, please contact Joshua Goldberg." Were you involved in setting up that auto-reply?
Q: That auto-reply directed all of Mr. Litman's contacts to you personally. Correct?
Q: Prior to that auto-reply being installed, anyone emailing Mr. Litman at his firm address would have believed he was still with the firm. Isn't that right?
Exhibit Reference: Auto-reply text (from post-arbitration email search, ~July 2025)
VIII. NUNC PRO TUNC ASSIGNMENT -- GOLDBERG'S OWN DOCUMENT DESTROYS HIS CONSENT DEFENSE
Theory: Goldberg filed a Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821) with the USPTO stating that Litman owns his name. Zero emails in 276,899 discuss this filing -- it was done without Litman's knowledge. In his Answer, Goldberg denies the Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment paragraph (paragraph 38).
8.1
Question 8.1 -- The Filing
Q: Are you familiar with a Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment recorded at the USPTO at Reel 007281, Frame 0821?
Q: Did you cause that document to be filed?
Q: That document states that Richard Litman owns his name. Do you agree with that characterization?
Q: In your Answer to this lawsuit, at paragraph 38, you denied the allegations about this Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment. What specifically did you deny?
Q: If the document you filed with the USPTO states that Mr. Litman owns his name, on what basis do you now claim you had the right to use his name without his consent?
Exhibit Reference: Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821)
8.2
Question 8.2 -- No Email Trail
Q: Did you discuss the filing of this Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment with Mr. Litman by email before filing it?
Q: Did you discuss it with him by any means before filing it?
Q: We have searched 276,899 of Mr. Litman's emails. Not a single one discusses this filing. Is that consistent with your recollection -- that this was filed without Mr. Litman's input?
Q: You filed a document with the United States Patent and Trademark Office that concerns Mr. Litman's ownership of his own name, and you did not consult him before doing so?
IX. THE RELATIONSHIP -- LITMAN WAS NOT A WILLING PARTICIPANT
Theory: The emails show a clear progression from partnership to adversarial dispute. Litman was owed money, cut out of decision-making, and had his name used without his involvement.
9.1
Question 9.1 -- "You Bought My Practice and My Goodwill"
Q: On April 22, 2021, Mr. Litman emailed you: "You and Jerry bought my practice and my goodwill associated with it." Did you receive that?
Q: He also wrote: "My not taking action while we sort things out should not be interpreted as a waiver." Did you understand him to be preserving his legal rights?
Q: If Mr. Litman believed you had bought his practice and goodwill, and he was preserving his legal rights, did you interpret any of this as consent to use his name on patent filings?
Exhibit Reference: Email C2051472_ND0000270233.msg (April 22, 2021, Litman to Goldberg)
9.2
Question 9.2 -- "I Trusted You... I Am Disappointed"
Q: On March 1, 2023, Mr. Litman wrote to you: "I trusted you to honor the combination agreement. I am disappointed. It really is anguishing for me." You received that?
Q: At the time you received this email, the firm owed Mr. Litman approximately $86,499.53. Is that correct?
Q: A person who tells you he is "disappointed" and "anguished" and who is owed $86,000 -- did you understand him to be consenting to the continued use of his name?
Exhibit Reference: Email C2051472_ND0000271250.msg (March 1, 2023, Litman to Goldberg)
9.3
Question 9.3 -- "If I Was in Your Seat, I Would Do Everything I Could to Look Less Like a Gonif"
Q: On February 23, 2023, Mr. Litman emailed you about King Saud University application filings. In that email, he wrote: "If I was in your seat, I would do everything I could to look less like a gonif." You received that?
Q: Do you know what "gonif" means?
Q: Mr. Litman was accusing you of acting dishonestly. Did you interpret that as consent to use his name?
Exhibit Reference: Feb 23, 2023 email, Litman to Goldberg, re "KSU -- Application filings"
X. GOLDBERG'S ANSWER -- PIN HIM TO HIS PLEADING
Theory: Goldberg's Answer (Doc #65, Jan 20, 2026) contains admissions and denials that are contradicted by documentary evidence. Lock him into these positions under oath.
10.1
Question 10.1 -- Admission at Paragraph 32
Q: In your Answer, at paragraph 32, you admitted that Mr. Litman's name appeared on patent front pages. You stand by that admission?
Q: You also admitted at paragraph 72 that Mr. Litman's name appeared on the NGM website. You stand by that?
Q: So we agree: Mr. Litman's name was used -- on patents and on the website. The question is whether you caused it and whether he consented. Correct?
Exhibit Reference: Goldberg's Answer, Doc #65 (Jan 20, 2026), paragraphs 32, 72
10.2
Question 10.2 -- Denial at Paragraph 33
Q: At paragraph 33 of your Answer, you denied that you "caused" Mr. Litman's name to appear on patent filings. That is your position?
Q: I have shown you 16 Powers of Attorney bearing your personal signature, your registration number 44126, designating Customer Number 37833, each of which resulted in a patent listing Mr. Litman as attorney of record. Having reviewed those documents, do you still maintain you did not "cause" Mr. Litman's name to appear?
Q: If you did not cause it, who did?
Exhibit Reference: All POA exhibits from Section I
10.3
Question 10.3 -- Denial at Paragraph 38
Q: At paragraph 38, you denied the allegations about the Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment. What specifically do you deny?
Q: Do you deny that the document exists?
Q: Do you deny that it states Mr. Litman owns his name?
Q: Do you deny that you caused it to be filed?
Exhibit Reference: Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment + Answer paragraph 38
XI. SCOPE AND SCALE -- THE "DECK OF CARDS"
Theory: Each outgoing USPTO document bearing Litman's name is a separate "publication" and a separate commercial use under Sections 50-51. There are 905 patents and 206 identified outgoing USPTO documents across 21 mapped applications alone.
11.1
Question 11.1 -- 905 Patents
Q: Since June 15, 2020, 905 United States patents have issued listing Richard C. Litman as attorney of record. Are you aware of that number?
Q: Each of those patents is a public government document, permanently available in USPTO records and patent databases. Correct?
Q: Each of those patents identifies Mr. Litman as the attorney who prosecuted the application. That is the public meaning of Line 74, isn't it?
11.2
Question 11.2 -- 206 Outgoing Documents
Q: For the 21 patent applications where we have complete file wrapper records, there are 206 outgoing USPTO documents -- Filing Receipts, Office Actions, Notices of Allowance, Issue Notifications -- all addressed to Customer Number 37833 and identifying Richard Litman as the attorney of record. Were you aware of that count?
Q: Each of those documents was generated because of a POA filing -- a POA that you or someone at your firm signed. Correct?
11.3
Question 11.3 -- KFU Scale
Q: King Faisal University was the largest university patent filer in the world in 2024, with 631 patents issued. Is that consistent with your understanding?
Q: How many of those 631 patents listed Richard Litman as attorney of record?
Q: Is 467 approximately correct?
Q: So nearly three-quarters of the world's largest university patent filer's output was attributed to Mr. Litman -- after the arbitration, after he was no longer practicing, after he told you he did not consent. Is that fair to say?
XII. CLOSING QUESTIONS -- NO ESCAPE
12.1
Question 12.1 -- The Written Consent Question
Q: Mr. Goldberg, Section 50 of the New York Civil Rights Law requires "written consent" before using a person's name for trade purposes. Can you produce a written consent from Richard Litman authorizing the use of his name on patent filings after June 15, 2020?
Q: Can you produce a written consent from Richard Litman authorizing the use of his name on the nathlaw.com website after June 15, 2020?
Q: Can you produce any written document -- an email, a letter, a contract, a memo -- in which Richard Litman consented to any of this?
12.2
Question 12.2 -- Summary
Q: To summarize: You personally signed 16 Powers of Attorney with your registration number 44126, each of which caused Richard Litman's name to appear as attorney of record on United States patents. You did this after the arbitration decision. Mr. Litman told you in writing -- multiple times -- that he did not consent. You collected millions of dollars in revenue from work done under his name. And you never once notified a client that Mr. Litman was no longer with the firm. Is any of that inaccurate?
APPENDIX: EXHIBIT LIST
| Exhibit |
Description |
File/Source |
| POA-1 |
POA for App 18/242,465 (Sept 5, 2023) |
|
| POA-2 |
POA for App 18/392,663 (Dec 21, 2023) |
|
| POA-3 |
POA for App 18/511,800 (Nov 16, 2023) |
|
| POA-4 |
POA for App 18/383,448 (Oct 24, 2023) -- clearest signature |
|
| ASSIGN-1 |
Assignment Cover Sheet for App 18/392,663 (Dec 21, 2023) |
|
| POA-TABLE |
Full table of 16 Goldberg POA signatures |
|
| EMAIL-1 |
"Not agreed to by me at anytime" (May 1, 2023) |
C2051472_ND0000226842.msg |
| EMAIL-2 |
"No basis without my consent" (June 24, 2025) |
C2051472_ND0000264017.msg |
| EMAIL-3 |
"I did not agree to terminate" (July 18, 2023) |
C2051472_ND0000263307.msg |
| EMAIL-4 |
POA mechanism explanation (Jan 17, 2023) |
C2051472_ND0000271155.msg |
| EMAIL-5 |
Post-arbitration POA strategy (June 19, 2023) |
C2051472_ND0000247121.msg |
| EMAIL-6 |
"He doesn't work here anymore" (May 21, 2021) |
C2051472_ND0000270307.msg |
| EMAIL-7 |
Active vs. retired/disabled (March 15, 2022) |
C2051472_ND0000270640.msg |
| EMAIL-8 |
"You bought my practice and my goodwill" (April 22, 2021) |
C2051472_ND0000270233.msg |
| EMAIL-9 |
"I trusted you... I am disappointed" (March 1, 2023) |
C2051472_ND0000271250.msg |
| EMAIL-10 |
Formal objection to NGM's lawyer (June 28, 2025) |
C2051472_ND0000264022.msg |
| EMAIL-11 |
"Please have your clients remove immediately" (July 10, 2025) |
Litman to Goldberg email |
| EMAIL-12 |
"Our communications should not be interpreted as agreeing" (Jan 10, 2023) |
Litman to Goldberg email |
| EMAIL-13 |
"Gonif" email (Feb 23, 2023) |
Litman to Goldberg email |
| WEBSITE-1 |
nathlaw.com Litman profile screenshot (June 21, 2025) |
|
| NPT-1 |
Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment |
Reel 007281, Frame 0821 |
| ANSWER-1 |
Goldberg's Answer (Doc #65) |
NYSCEF Doc #65 (Jan 20, 2026) |