Four Categories of Name Use

Executive Summary

Under the "deck of cards" theory, each individual document or publication bearing Richard Litman's name constitutes a separate commercial use under NY Civil Rights Law § 51. Across four categories of use, the evidence establishes:

These four categories are not isolated. They are interconnected channels of a single scheme: Goldberg continued operating under Litman's professional identity to retain Middle Eastern patent clients and the revenue they generated. The KNPC evidence proves Goldberg had direct control over this process, and each category flows from that control.

The Enabler: KNPC Control Proof

Before examining the four categories, it is critical to establish how Goldberg caused Litman's name to appear. The Kuwait National Petroleum Company (KNPC) patents provide the clearest evidence of Goldberg's direct, personal control over the prosecution process.

Full KNPC Control Exhibit — Document chains, billing records, timeline →

The Prosecution Chain

Every patent that lists Litman's name follows a documented chain of causation, initiated by Goldberg's own hand:

Goldberg's 16 POA Signatures

Across 21 mapped patent applications, Goldberg personally signed 16 Powers of Attorney (Reg. No. 44126), each designating the correspondence address that places Litman's name on the patent. These are not automated system entries — they are handwritten signatures on sworn USPTO forms.

Detail	Finding
Total POAs with Goldberg signature	16 of 21 (76%)
POAs signed after arbitration (6/14/2023)	Majority — continued despite ruling
Most recent POA signature	January 17, 2025
Goldberg's USPTO Reg. No.	44126
LaFave PTOL-85B filings	18 confirmed

The December 21, 2023 "Bombshell"

KNPC Transition Evidence

All three KNPC patents show Goldberg (not Litman) on Line 74, demonstrating that Goldberg was capable of removing Litman's name when he chose to. The fact that he removed Litman from KNPC filings while keeping Litman on 905 other patents proves the continued use was deliberate, not accidental.

Consent Defense Destroyed

Goldberg's own Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821) recorded at the USPTO states that Litman owns his name and professional identity. This directly contradicts Goldberg's Affirmative Defense #10 (consent) in his Answer (NYSCEF Doc #65).

Goldberg ADMITS Litman's name appeared on patent front pages and the NGM website after 6/15/2020 (¶¶ 32, 72 of Answer). He DENIES he "caused" it (¶ 33) — contradicted by 16 POA signatures in his own hand.

— Analysis of NYSCEF Doc #65 (Goldberg Answer, 01/20/2026)

The primary and most thoroughly documented category. Every patent issued by the USPTO listing "Richard Litman" as attorney of record is a government-published commercial use of his name in furtherance of Goldberg's patent practice.

Scope of Patent Evidence

Evidence Type	Count	Significance
Patents listing Litman (post-6/15/2020)	905	Each patent front page is a publication under § 51
Outgoing USPTO documents bearing Litman's name	206+	Filing receipts, responses, NOAs — each a separate act
IFW file wrapper JSON records	21	Full prosecution history for 21 applications
POA PDFs with Goldberg signature (OCR verified)	16	Direct proof of causation — handwritten signatures
IFEE PDFs analyzed	32	Fee transmittals using Litman's name
Post-SOL-safe overlap patents (after 7/21/2024)	12	Strongest SOL argument — recent publications

Document Categories Within Each Patent

A single patent generates multiple publications of Litman's name through the prosecution lifecycle:

With 905 patents, each averaging 3–7 name-bearing documents, the conservative estimate is 2,715 to 6,335 separate § 51 publications from Category 1 alone.

Hidden Attribution Discovery

Front-page gap analysis revealed patents where the eGrant PDF omits the attorney listing but the IFW prosecution history proves full name-use throughout. These "hidden attribution" patents expand the evidence base beyond what a simple front-page review reveals.

Beyond USPTO filings, Goldberg used Litman's name extensively in direct client communications. The email corpus reveals systematic exploitation of Litman's professional reputation to retain and solicit clients.

Full Client-Facing Exhibit — Martha Long emails, solicitations, two-publication multiplier →

Martha Long Solicitations

Martha Long, working under Goldberg's direction, sent emails to prospective and existing clients explicitly invoking Litman's name and reputation:

"I have worked with Richard Litman for 27 years."

— Martha Long, in prospective client solicitation emails

This is textbook § 51 misappropriation: using a person's name and professional reputation, without consent, to solicit business. The 24,526+ emails attributed to Martha Long's client communications represent a massive, sustained campaign of name exploitation.

Website Presence

Date	nathlaw.com Status	Evidence
Through June 21, 2025	Litman listed as "PATENT ATTORNEY" (no "Retired" qualifier)	Wayback Machine screenshot
By September 5, 2025	Litman removed entirely	Wayback Machine screenshot
Duration of misuse	5+ years (6/15/2020 – 6/21/2025 minimum)	Seven website screenshots in evidence

The website listing Litman as an active "PATENT ATTORNEY" — without any retired designation — for over five years after the SOL cutoff is an ongoing, continuous commercial use of his name and professional identity to attract clients to the firm.

Goldberg's exploitation of Litman's name extended beyond patents into trademark prosecution. Howard Kline conducted trademark work under the firm's name, with Litman systematically copied on correspondence to maintain the appearance of his involvement.

Full Trademark Exhibit — Nicola Pizza case study, Kline emails, trust ledger →

Howard Kline's Role

Howard Kline handled trademark matters for the firm's clients, generating 2,678 emails in the evidence corpus. Of these, 91% were CC'd to Litman — not because Litman was actively supervising the work, but to maintain the fiction that Litman remained engaged in the practice.

Nicola Pizza: The Representative Case

The Nicola Pizza trademark matter is the exemplar case demonstrating how Litman's name was used in trademark prosecution:

The 1,813 trademark-specific emails each constitute a commercial use of Litman's name in the advertising and trade of legal services. These are distinct from the patent filings and represent a separate stream of name exploitation.

When Goldberg caused Litman's name to appear on USPTO filings, he knew or should have known that the USPTO publishes this data to multiple commercial databases. Each database republication is a foreseeable consequence of Goldberg's initial act and is separately actionable.

Full Republication Exhibit — 10 databases, multiplier math, foreseeability evidence →

Republication Channels

Database / Platform	Est. Entries	Nature of Use
Google Patents	905+	Full patent text with attorney name, freely searchable worldwide
USPTO PatentsView	905+	Government database listing Litman as attorney
Espacenet (EPO)	905+	European Patent Office mirror of US patents
WIPO PATENTSCOPE	905+	World Intellectual Property Organization database
Justia Patents	905+	Commercial legal database with attorney attribution
FPO (Free Patents Online)	905+	Commercial patent database
Patent Buddy / BigPatent	905+	Attorney ranking and analytics platforms
Lens.org	905+	Open scholarly patent database
Derwent Innovation	905+	Clarivate commercial database (paid subscribers)
Corporate client internal systems	Varies	KFU, KNPC, UAEU, and others maintain internal IP records

These database entries are permanent. Unlike a website listing that can be removed, patent database entries persist indefinitely. Litman's name will be associated with Goldberg's work in these databases forever, compounding the injury with each passing year.

Middle East Client Origination Evidence

The four categories of name use were not random or incidental. They were driven by a deliberate strategy to retain lucrative Middle Eastern university and government clients that Litman had originated over his career.

Goldberg's Admission

Goldberg admitted in the arbitration proceeding that these clients were originated by Litman. His continued use of Litman's name after the arbitration decision was an intentional effort to maintain these client relationships by trading on Litman's established reputation in the Middle East.

— Arbitration record analysis

Client Portfolio

Client	Type	Patent Activity	Origination
King Faisal University (KFU)	University	467+ patents	Litman-originated
King Saud University	University	Per BOP	Litman-originated
KNPC	Government Oil Co.	3 patents	Litman-originated (transition evidence)
UAEU	University	Active portfolio	Litman-originated
Kuwait University	University	Per BOP	Litman-originated
Dasman Diabetes Institute	Research	Active	Litman-originated
Sabah Al Ahmad Center	Research	Active	Litman-originated
KISR	Research	Active	Litman-originated

"The Pad" — Internal Tracking System

Billing Records

Financial analysis of the email corpus revealed 2,428 financial attachments and billing records tied to these client matters. These records demonstrate the commercial value Goldberg extracted from Litman's name — each invoice sent under Litman's name generated revenue that flowed to Goldberg's practice.

Combined Damages Framework

Each category of name use supports independent damages claims. The following table summarizes the per-category exposure:

Category	Documented Acts	Per-Act Value Range	Estimated Damages Range
1. USPTO Patents & Filings	905 patents + 206 docs = 1,111+	$1,000 – $5,000	$1.1M – $5.6M
2. Client-Facing Publications	24,526+ emails + website	$100 – $500	$2.5M – $12.3M
3. Trademark Practice	1,813 trademark emails	$100 – $500	$181K – $907K
4. Foreseeable Republication	9,050+ database entries	$100 – $500	$905K – $4.5M
TOTAL	36,500+	—	$4.7M – $23.3M

Note: Per-act valuations are illustrative ranges for negotiation and settlement purposes. Actual statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, and punitive damages may substantially exceed these estimates. The combined range of $11.1M – $29.6M cited in case strategy documents includes additional factors such as disgorgement, unjust enrichment, and exemplary damages.

Additional Damages Theories

• Disgorgement of Profits: All revenue Goldberg earned from Litman-originated clients using Litman's name
• Unjust Enrichment: Value of client relationships retained through name misuse
• Punitive Damages: Willful, knowing conduct — continued after arbitration decision
• Injunctive Relief: Permanent injunction against further use of Litman's name
• Attorneys' Fees: Available under § 51 for willful violations

Recommended Actions