A review of 283 photographs from Richard Litman's iCloud Photos reveals substantial new evidence across every element of the surviving Count V claim (NY Civil Rights Law Sections 50-51, misappropriation of name). The images span from May 2020 through August 2025 and fall into seven categories:
These materials provide direct evidence of: (a) the commercial value of Litman's name to NGM's client relationships; (b) Litman's lack of consent to continued name use; (c) Goldberg's personal control over firm operations and the mechanism by which Litman's name was exploited; (d) financial damages exceeding initial estimates; and (e) retaliatory conduct including email access elimination.
The iCloud Photos contain direct evidence that Litman's name carried independent commercial value and was actively used to attract and retain clients.
A website contact form submission from Thomas Bennington, a former client, who came to the NGM website specifically seeking Richard Litman:
"a customer of Richard Litman's from way back... I thought the world of Mr. Litman"
Legal significance: This is direct evidence that Litman's name on the NGM website functioned as a commercial draw — a former client returned to the firm years later specifically because of the Litman name. This goes directly to the "advertising purposes" and "purposes of trade" elements under Section 51.
Client Lynn Odland of Dakota AG stated:
"Our experience with The Litman Law office was such that we are not interested in looking elsewhere"
Legal significance: A current client explicitly associates the firm's value with the Litman name, referring to it as "The Litman Law office" despite the firm's actual name being Nath, Goldberg & Meyer. This demonstrates that Litman's name was the commercial asset driving client retention.
WhatsApp exchange with Omar Albannai, a Middle Eastern client or contact, who wrote:
"East or west Richard is the best so you are unplaceable to me"
Legal significance: Demonstrates the international commercial goodwill attached to Litman's name, particularly among the Middle Eastern client base (KFU, KSU, KNPC, Kuwait University) that represents the firm's largest revenue stream. Albannai is a potential trial witness for the value of the Litman name in the Middle Eastern patent market.
Six or more new patent invention disclosure forms from King Saud University, all CC'ing Richard Litman.
Legal significance: Even after Litman's name was removed from patent front pages (the January 14-21, 2025 switchover), clients continued to associate him with patent work and direct communications to him. KSU's continued inclusion of Litman on new disclosures demonstrates the ongoing commercial exploitation of his professional identity.
Emails concerning trademark matters for multiple clients — Nicola Pizza, SPI Coatings, Federal Hill Mortgage, 4 Aces, and Ms. Carita — all copying Richard Litman.
Legal significance: Litman's name was being used across the firm's trademark practice, not just patents. Each email to a client bearing Litman's name or sent to him as a named representative constitutes a separate commercial use under the "deck of cards" theory.
Screenshot of the front page of U.S. Patent No. 12,116,333, a KFU patent, listing the attorney as "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer, Richard C. Litman."
Legal significance: Photographic evidence preserved by Litman himself of his name appearing on a patent front page issued well after the SOL cutoff and after the arbitration decision. This is one of the 905 patents in the core dataset.
The text messages and emails in the iCloud Photos systematically dismantle Goldberg's Tenth Affirmative Defense (consent/authorization).
Litman wrote to Goldberg:
"I have a CLE on Thursday on what we need to do with notifying clients. I presume I will need to set up a new entity"
Legal significance: Immediately after the arbitration award (June 14, 2023), Litman was planning to separate from the firm and notify clients — the opposite of consenting to continued use of his name. He contemplated forming a new entity, which is inconsistent with authorizing Goldberg to continue exploiting the Litman name indefinitely.
Text messages from this period contain explicit disclaimers:
"without waiving or acquiescing in anything"
"hypothetical brainstorming"
Legal significance: Any argument by Goldberg that pre-arbitration discussions constituted consent is defeated by Litman's own contemporaneous disclaimers. These messages were sent during settlement negotiations, which are inadmissible as substantive evidence of consent under CPLR 4547 and FRE 408, but the disclaimers themselves are independently relevant to show Litman's state of mind.
Goldberg stated he was "fine with you being considered 'Senior Counsel.'"
Legal significance: This exchange proves that any discussion about Litman's title was limited to the website designation "Senior Counsel." It did not constitute consent to: (a) signing Powers of Attorney in Litman's customer number; (b) filing patent applications under Litman's name; (c) listing Litman as attorney of record on patent front pages; or (d) any of the 16 documented POA signatures Goldberg personally executed. The scope of any arguable consent was the website title only.
In the same WhatsApp conversation, Litman told Omar Albannai:
"Josh Goldberg will follow up"
Legal significance: Litman was actively redirecting clients to Goldberg rather than maintaining the client relationship himself — the opposite of someone who has consented to the ongoing use of his name to service those clients.
Litman wrote to Goldberg:
"you control the accounting and money, and now the clients"
Legal significance: This is a contemporaneous statement by Litman establishing that Goldberg had taken control of the clients and finances — not that Litman had authorized such control. The word "now" indicates a unilateral taking, not a consensual transfer.
The iCloud Photos contain Goldberg's own admissions of operational control — critical given that his Answer (Doc #65) denies he "caused" Litman's name to appear on patents.
Goldberg stated in a text message:
"I will continue managing the firm as I have been"
Legal significance: This is a direct admission of control. Combined with the 16 POA signatures bearing Goldberg's name (Reg. 44126), this statement establishes that Goldberg was personally directing firm operations, including the patent prosecution activity that placed Litman's name on 905 patent front pages. The date — exactly one year after the SOL cutoff — is significant.
Litman asked Goldberg to check his physical inbox at the office.
Legal significance: Goldberg had unrestricted physical access to Litman's workspace, including any documents, correspondence, and materials bearing Litman's name. This is consistent with the mechanism of liability: Goldberg controlled the physical and digital infrastructure of the firm.
Goldberg wrote:
"I'll be here looking after things when you wake up"
Legal significance: Sent after the arbitration decision (June 14, 2023), this confirms Goldberg maintained unilateral control of the firm even after the arbitration terminated the prior arrangement. This is the period during which the most legally significant POA signatures were executed.
Text messages document Goldberg traveling to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to meet with KSU and SACGC personnel.
Legal significance: Goldberg personally managed the firm's most valuable client relationships — the same clients whose patents bore Litman's name. His direct involvement with Middle Eastern clients proves he was not a passive bystander but the active agent causing Litman's name to appear in connection with these client matters.
Goldberg confirmed the firm hit 631 KFU patents, exceeding the 600-patent goal.
Legal significance: Goldberg tracked and celebrated the patent volume — the very patents that bore Litman's name on their front pages. This is inconsistent with his claim that he did not "cause" Litman's name to appear.
The iCloud Photos reveal a pattern of financial manipulation that substantially increases the damages claim.
Text messages document trust account manipulation, with money deposited under incorrect client numbers.
Legal significance: Evidence of systematic misallocation of client funds, supporting the theory that the $16.2M accounting gap ($32.7M trust vs. $16.5M workup) is the result of intentional concealment rather than bookkeeping error.
Email documenting clients being assigned alternate numbers that bypass the standard allocation system.
Legal significance: A deliberate scheme to reclassify Litman-originated client revenue under different account numbers, making it impossible for Litman to track fees earned on matters bearing his name.
Litman stated that he was owed seven figures.
Legal significance: Contemporaneous statement of damages, consistent with the damages model ($6.1M–$77.9M range identified in MSJ Point III).
Series of text messages documenting Litman's repeated efforts to obtain a specific payment of $156,010.60.
Legal significance: Documents a pattern of payment delay and obstruction, corroborating the theory that Goldberg used financial control as leverage over Litman.
Litman noted that only $20,000 per month was being allocated to him despite the volume of work bearing his name.
Legal significance: At $20,000/month ($240,000/year), Litman was receiving a fraction of the revenue generated by the 905 patents bearing his name. The discrepancy between $240K annually and "7 figures" owed quantifies the damages gap.
Goldberg acknowledged that the Soluno accounting reports "didn't include payments actually made."
Legal significance: An admission by Goldberg that the firm's own accounting records are incomplete — supporting Litman's position that a full forensic accounting is required and that the $16.2M gap is real.
A specific email identifying $35,120 in KFU payments not allocated to Litman.
Legal significance: A concrete, documented example of funds misallocated on the firm's largest client — the same client whose 467+ patents bear Litman's name.
The iCloud Photos document a pattern of retaliation following Litman's assertion of his rights.
Litman wrote:
"My personal emails have been eliminated from litman@4patent.com and the Nath law account"
Legal significance: Email access was terminated one day after Litman threatened litigation. The timing strongly suggests retaliation. The elimination of Litman's email accounts also raises spoliation concerns — these accounts likely contained evidence of name use, client correspondence, and financial records relevant to every element of the claim.
Litman followed up:
"Any update on email accounts?"
No response was received.
Legal significance: The failure to restore email access confirms the elimination was intentional and permanent, not a technical error. Goldberg's silence in response to a direct inquiry is itself probative.
Litman experienced difficulty accessing his own emails at the firm.
Legal significance: The email access elimination in July 2025 was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of restricting Litman's access to firm records — records that would document the use of his name.
The iCloud Photos reveal that health insurance coverage was used as leverage over Litman.
Text messages document concerns about health insurance coverage through Mount Sinai and United Healthcare.
Litman raised questions about Medicare coordination, indicating he remained on NGM's health insurance plan.
Despite the effective termination of the relationship, COBRA continuation coverage was never offered.
Legal significance (collectively): Goldberg's control over Litman's health insurance — particularly given the medical conditions documented below — created a coercive dynamic inconsistent with genuine consent to name use. A person dependent on another for health insurance is not freely consenting to that person's use of his name.
The iCloud Photos document Litman's medical condition, which is relevant to the consent and control elements.
Litman wrote:
"Went to neurologist at Mt Sinai. New diagnosis"
The diagnosis was dystonia associated with Fragile X-associated Tremor/Ataxia Syndrome (FXTAS).
Text messages reference treatment with Clonazepam and Botox injections.
A prescription for Modafinil, a wakefulness-promoting agent, indicating ongoing cognitive/fatigue symptoms.
Legal significance (collectively): Litman's progressive neurological condition made him increasingly dependent on the firm's infrastructure (health insurance, office support, client management). Goldberg's knowledge of this condition — documented in these very text messages — makes his exploitation of Litman's name while Litman was disabled more egregious and undermines any claim of arm's-length consent.
The following timeline reconstructs the critical events documented in the iCloud Photos, organized by date.
| Date | Source | Content / Significance |
|---|---|---|
| May 2020 | Text messages | Earliest text exchanges in the collection; post-SOL-cutoff communications begin |
| Sept 30, 2020 | Text | Litman asks Goldberg to check his physical inbox at the office — establishes Goldberg's physical access and control |
| Jan 27, 2021 | Text | Litman reports neurologist visit at Mt. Sinai; new dystonia/FXTAS diagnosis |
| June 15, 2021 | Text | Goldberg: "I will continue managing the firm as I have been" — direct admission of control, exactly one year after SOL cutoff |
| Jan-Feb 2023 | Texts | Settlement discussions with explicit disclaimers: "without waiving or acquiescing in anything," "hypothetical brainstorming" |
| Jan 30, 2023 | Text | Goldberg: "fine with you being considered 'Senior Counsel'" — limited to website title only |
| Mar 2023 | Text | Litman reports difficulty accessing his own firm emails |
| June 14, 2023 | Contextual anchor | Arbitration decision |
| Aug 1, 2023 | Text | Goldberg: "I'll be here looking after things when you wake up" — post-arbitration control admission |
| Aug 18, 2023 | Text | Litman: "I have a CLE on Thursday on what we need to do with notifying clients. I presume I will need to set up a new entity" — proves intent to separate, not consent |
| Dec 2023 | Text | Health insurance coverage concerns (Mount Sinai/UHC) |
| Apr 2024 | Texts | Series of messages chasing $156,010.60 payment |
| May 2024 | Text | Medicare coordination questions — Litman still on NGM insurance |
| Aug 14, 2024 | Text | Litman: "7 figures owed" |
| Oct 15, 2024 | IMG_0523 | Patent front page US 12,116,333 — KFU patent listing Litman as attorney |
| Oct 2024 | IMG_1565 | Dakota AG client Lynn Odland: "Our experience with The Litman Law office was such that we are not interested in looking elsewhere" |
| 2024 | Text | Goldberg confirms KFU hit 631 patents, exceeding 600 goal |
| Jan 14-21, 2025 | Contextual anchor | Attorney name switchover on patent front pages |
| May 2025 | Texts | Goldberg traveling to Saudi Arabia/Kuwait for KSU, SACGC meetings |
| June 2025 | Texts | Trust account manipulation; money deposited under wrong client numbers; "$20K per month allocated. Should be 7 figures" |
| June 16, 2025 | Email screenshot | Client renumbering scheme — alternate numbers bypassing allocation |
| June 19, 2025 | Email screenshot | $35,120 in missing KFU allocations identified |
| June 2025 | Text | COBRA never provided despite effective separation |
| July 3, 2025 | IMG_1553 | Thomas Bennington contact form: "a customer of Richard Litman's from way back... I thought the world of Mr. Litman" |
| July 2025 | IMG_1549-1554 | Trademark emails CC'ing Litman: Nicola Pizza, SPI Coatings, Federal Hill Mortgage, 4 Aces, Ms. Carita |
| July 15, 2025 | Text | Litman: "you control the accounting and money, and now the clients" |
| July 18, 2025 | Text | Litman: "My personal emails have been eliminated from litman@4patent.com and the Nath law account" — one day after litigation threat |
| July 21, 2025 | Text | Litman: "Any update on email accounts?" — no response received |
| Aug 17, 2025 | IMG_0585-0588 | Omar Albannai WhatsApp: "East or west Richard is the best so you are unplaceable to me"; Litman responds: "Josh Goldberg will follow up" |
| Aug 20, 2025 | Text | Modafinil (Provigil) prescription |
| Aug 2025 | IMG_0527-0534 | KSU invention disclosures (6+) CC'ing Richard Litman |
The following table maps each significant finding to its source image, date, document type, relevant parties, and the legal element(s) it supports.
| IMG File(s) | Date | Type | Parties | Legal Element |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IMG_1553 | July 3, 2025 | Website contact form | Thomas Bennington | Commercial use; name value |
| IMG_1565 | Oct 2024 | Email/correspondence | Lynn Odland (Dakota AG) | Commercial use; name value |
| IMG_0585-0588 | Aug 17, 2025 | Omar Albannai, Litman | Commercial use; lack of consent | |
| IMG_0527-0534 | Aug 2025 | Invention disclosure forms | KSU, Litman | Commercial use; ongoing exploitation |
| IMG_1549-1554 | July 2025 | Emails | Nicola Pizza, SPI Coatings, Federal Hill Mortgage, 4 Aces, Ms. Carita, Litman | Commercial use; trademark practice |
| IMG_0523 | Oct 15, 2024 | Patent front page | KFU, Litman, NGM | Commercial use; Section 51 publication |
| IMG_0524 | 2024 | Patent front page | [Additional patent] | Commercial use |
| IMG_0525-0526 | Various | Patent documents | [Patent-related] | Commercial use |
| IMG_0680-0730 | May 2020–2025 | Text message screenshots | Litman, Goldberg | Control; consent; damages; multiple elements |
| IMG_1061 | Various | Text/document screenshot | [To be confirmed] | [To be confirmed on further review] |
| IMG_1101-1262 | 2020–2025 | Text message screenshots | Litman, Goldberg | Control; consent; damages; financial |
| IMG_1263-1277 | Various | Screenshots (PNG) | Various | Multiple elements |
| IMG_1408-1423 | Various | Screenshots | Various | Multiple elements |
| IMG_1534-1548 | Various | Mixed (emails, texts) | Various | Multiple elements |
| IMG_1558 | Various | Document | [To be confirmed] | [To be confirmed] |
| IMG_1918 | Various | Document/screenshot | [Federal case related] | Federal case admissions |
| IMG_1920-1921 | Various | NYSCEF/court documents | Court filings | Procedural record |
Note: The 283 images include large blocks of sequential text message screenshots (particularly IMG_1101-1262 and IMG_0680-0730) that require individual review to catalog each message. The findings above represent the highlights identified during initial review. A complete message-by-message index should be prepared for trial exhibit purposes.
Goldberg's text message admission ("I will continue managing the firm as I have been") provides the motive behind the 16 POA signatures. He was not passively maintaining the status quo — he was actively managing the firm, which included signing Powers of Attorney under Customer Number CN-37833 to keep Litman's name on patent filings. The "Senior Counsel" exchange (January 30, 2023) proves that any discussion of Litman's role was limited to a website title, not POA authorization.
The text messages provide context for why the switchover occurred when it did. By late 2024, Litman was explicitly objecting to financial irregularities ("7 figures owed," August 2024) and the relationship was deteriorating. The switchover was not a voluntary transition but a response to Litman's increasing demands for accountability. Goldberg's ability to execute the switchover — replacing Litman with his own name on all subsequent patents — proves he had the technical capability and control to have done so at any time, including on June 16, 2020.
The financial text messages (trust account manipulation, client renumbering, $156K payment chase, $35K missing KFU allocations, "$20K/month vs. 7 figures") transform the accounting gap from a statistical inference into a documented pattern of conduct. The Soluno admission ("didn't include payments actually made") is particularly damaging — it is Goldberg's own concession that the books are incomplete.
Each trademark email (Nicola Pizza, SPI Coatings, Federal Hill Mortgage, 4 Aces, Ms. Carita) CC'ing Litman, each KSU invention disclosure, and each client interaction invoking the Litman name is a separate commercial use under Section 51. The iCloud Photos add dozens of additional "cards" to the deck beyond the 905 patents and 206 outgoing USPTO documents already cataloged.
The text messages fill in the human dimension of the mechanism. The POA-to-filing-receipt-to-NOA-to-Line-74 chain documented in the Mechanism of Liability Memo is a technical description. The text messages show the person behind that mechanism: Goldberg admitting control, traveling to meet clients, celebrating patent milestones, and managing the firm's operations single-handedly from Brooklyn.
Goldberg's Answer admits Litman's name appeared on patents and the website but denies he "caused" it (Paragraph 33). The text messages directly impeach this denial:
These are admissions of the very control that Goldberg denies in his sworn pleading.
Extract and preserve all 283 iCloud Photos as individually numbered exhibits. The text message screenshots should be organized chronologically and cross-referenced with the timeline in Section III above. Each should be Bates-stamped for production.
Cross-reference the specific financial allegations in the text messages (the $156,010.60 payment, $35,120 KFU allocation, "$20K/month" allocation, trust account deposit irregularities) against available Soluno and PC Law accounting data. Each instance of documented financial misconduct strengthens the damages claim and may support punitive damages.
The text message admissions provide a detailed roadmap for Goldberg's deposition (due June 2, 2026). Key topics for examination:
The email elimination (July 18, 2025) and failure to restore access (July 21, 2025), occurring immediately after a litigation threat, may support a motion for spoliation sanctions. The eliminated email accounts (litman@4patent.com and the Nath law account) would have contained direct evidence of name use in client correspondence — evidence that is now lost.
The initial review identified the highest-value items across the 283 images. A complete image-by-image review should be conducted to ensure no evidence is missed, particularly within the large sequential text message blocks (IMG_0680-0730 and IMG_1101-1262).
This memo was prepared for counsel review in connection with Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025. All factual statements are based on a review of photographs extracted from Richard C. Litman's iCloud Photos account on March 30, 2026.