Executive Summary
All 3 KNPC patents list Joshua B. Goldberg on Line 74 (Attorney/Agent) of the patent front page — but NGM's internal billing records list all KNPC dockets under Richard Litman (RL). This contradiction proves that Goldberg exercised knowing, conscious control over whose name appeared on patent records.
The KNPC portfolio is the transition evidence that proves Goldberg could choose which attorney name appeared on patent front pages. When he wanted his own name on KNPC patents, he put his own name. When he wanted to continue exploiting Litman's reputation with other clients (KFU, UAEU, KSU), he put Litman's name. This was not accidental — it was deliberate, selective, and knowing.
KNPC Patent Portfolio
| Patent No. | Issue Date | Docket | Line 74 (Attorney) | Billing Attorney |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12,157,086 | December 3, 2024 | 33060.52U | Joshua B. Goldberg (Reg. 44,126) | Richard Litman (RL) |
| 12,280,479 | April 22, 2025 | 33060.72U | Joshua B. Goldberg (Reg. 44,126) | Richard Litman (RL) |
| 12,510,313 | January 13, 2026 | 33060.76U | Joshua B. Goldberg (Reg. 44,126) | Richard Litman (RL) |
Patent 12,510,313 was filed on July 23, 2025 — exactly two days after the lawsuit was filed (July 21, 2025). Despite active litigation alleging misappropriation of Litman's name, Goldberg continued filing KNPC patent applications under his own name while simultaneously maintaining Litman's name on other clients' patents. This timing demonstrates both awareness and deliberate choice.
Fourth Pending Matter
A fourth KNPC application, docket 33060.81U, was filed on April 29, 2025 and remains pending. This confirms that KNPC prosecution work continued well into 2025, all billed under Litman but filed under Goldberg's name.
NGM Billing Records
All nine KNPC dockets in NGM's billing system are assigned to Richard Litman (RL) as the billing attorney:
| Docket No. | Description | Billing Attorney | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 33060.52U | KNPC Patent Application (issued as 12,157,086) | Richard Litman (RL) | Issued |
| 33060.60U | KNPC Patent Application | Richard Litman (RL) | Pending/Closed |
| 33060.63U | KNPC Patent Application | Richard Litman (RL) | Pending/Closed |
| 33060.66U | KNPC Patent Application | Richard Litman (RL) | Pending/Closed |
| 33060.67U | KNPC Patent Application | Richard Litman (RL) | Pending/Closed |
| 33060.68U | KNPC Patent Application | Richard Litman (RL) | Pending/Closed |
| 33060.72U | KNPC Patent Application (issued as 12,280,479) | Richard Litman (RL) | Issued |
| 33060.76U | KNPC Patent Application (issued as 12,510,313) | Richard Litman (RL) | Issued |
| 33060.81U | KNPC Patent Application (filed 4/29/2025) | Richard Litman (RL) | Pending |
Goldberg's name appears on the public patent record (Line 74, visible to the world) while Litman's name appears on the internal billing record (visible only to NGM). This proves the name designation was a conscious choice, not an automatic or ministerial act. Goldberg deliberately selected which name to put on which patent — his own name for KNPC, Litman's name for KFU and other clients.
Knowing Conscious Control — Timeline
The following timeline demonstrates the progressive pattern of Goldberg taking control of KNPC matters while maintaining Litman's name on other clients' work:
| Date | Event | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| June 14, 2023 | Arbitration decision issued | Litman effectively separated from NGM |
| Late 2023 | Goldberg begins filing KNPC applications under his own name | Demonstrates ability to change attorney designation |
| Dec 3, 2024 | Patent 12,157,086 issues — Goldberg on Line 74 | First KNPC patent with Goldberg's name |
| Jan 14, 2025 | Patent 12,194,434 issues — last patent with Litman on Line 74 | Litman's name still appearing on other clients' patents |
| Jan 17, 2025 | Goldberg signs POA for KSU patent (most recent POA) | Still actively using Litman's name for other clients |
| Jan 21, 2025 | Patent 12,201,650 issues — first patent with Goldberg on Line 74 (non-KNPC) | Name switchover begins for all clients |
| Apr 22, 2025 | Patent 12,280,479 issues — Goldberg on Line 74 | Second KNPC patent confirms pattern |
| Apr 29, 2025 | Docket 33060.81U filed (KNPC, pending) | Continued KNPC prosecution under Goldberg's name |
| Jul 21, 2025 | Lawsuit filed | Litman v. Goldberg commences |
| Jul 23, 2025 | Patent 12,510,313 application filed — two days post-suit | Filing continues despite active litigation |
| Jan 13, 2026 | Patent 12,510,313 issues — Goldberg on Line 74 | Third KNPC patent during active litigation |
| Dec 30, 2025 | Billing records produced showing all KNPC dockets under Litman | Internal records confirm the contradiction |
Uncle’s Narrative Confirmed
Richard Litman has consistently stated that Goldberg took over his practice and continued using his name without consent. The KNPC evidence confirms every element of this narrative:
Five Evidence Points
- Goldberg controlled the attorney designation. He put his own name on KNPC patents, proving the name on Line 74 is a deliberate choice made by the filing attorney, not an automatic USPTO process.
- Litman's name was retained for commercial value. For KFU, UAEU, KSU, and other high-volume clients, Goldberg kept Litman's name because those client relationships were built on Litman's reputation. KNPC was a newer relationship where Goldberg's own name sufficed.
- The billing records prove the work was still attributed to Litman. Even though Goldberg was doing the work and putting his own name on KNPC patents, the billing system still listed Litman as the responsible attorney — showing that Litman's name continued to have commercial value in NGM's operations.
- The transition was gradual and strategic. Goldberg did not switch all patents to his name at once. He started with KNPC (where his own name had value) while maintaining Litman's name elsewhere (where Litman's reputation had value). The full switchover did not occur until January 2025.
- The timing correlates with legal exposure. The January 2025 switchover — where Goldberg finally removed Litman's name from all new patents — occurred just months before the lawsuit was filed, suggesting awareness that the name use was improper.
What Changed
- Before KNPC discovery: Goldberg could argue the name designation was automatic, ministerial, or outside his control.
- After KNPC discovery: The evidence proves Goldberg actively chose which name appeared on each patent. He put his name on KNPC patents and Litman's name on everyone else's. This was selective, deliberate, and knowing.
- Before billing records: Goldberg could argue KNPC was a separate matter unrelated to Litman.
- After billing records: All KNPC dockets are billed under Litman, proving these matters were part of Litman's practice that Goldberg took over.
Goldberg’s Answer Contradicted
In his Answer (Doc #65, filed January 20, 2026), Goldberg made several statements that the KNPC evidence directly contradicts:
- Goldberg denies he “caused” Litman's name to appear (¶33) — but the KNPC patents prove he controlled which attorney name appeared on Line 74. He put his own name on KNPC patents while simultaneously keeping Litman's name on other patents. This is causation by deliberate choice.
- Goldberg claims the name use was “incidental” — but selectively choosing Litman's name for high-value client relationships while using his own name for KNPC is the opposite of incidental. It is strategic commercial exploitation.
- Goldberg asserts consent (Affirmative Defense #10) — but his own Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821) states Litman owns his name. If consent existed, no assignment would be necessary.
- Goldberg claims lack of commercial purpose — but the billing records show all KNPC matters billed under Litman, confirming that Litman's name was used as a revenue-generating asset across the firm's entire patent practice.
Document Chain for Each KNPC Patent
Patent 12,157,086 (Docket 33060.52U)
Issued December 3, 2024
| Document | Date | Attorney Name | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Power of Attorney | Pre-filing | Joshua B. Goldberg | Goldberg appointed as attorney of record |
| Filing Receipt | Upon filing | Joshua B. Goldberg | USPTO confirms Goldberg as correspondence attorney |
| Office Actions | During prosecution | Joshua B. Goldberg | All communications addressed to Goldberg |
| Notice of Allowance | Pre-issue | Joshua B. Goldberg | Patent approved under Goldberg's name |
| Patent Front Page (Line 74) | Dec 3, 2024 | Joshua B. Goldberg | Public record shows Goldberg |
| NGM Billing Record | Ongoing | Richard Litman (RL) | Internal billing contradicts public record |
Patent 12,280,479 (Docket 33060.72U)
Issued April 22, 2025
| Document | Date | Attorney Name | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Power of Attorney | Pre-filing | Joshua B. Goldberg | Goldberg appointed as attorney of record |
| Filing Receipt | Upon filing | Joshua B. Goldberg | USPTO confirms Goldberg as correspondence attorney |
| Office Actions | During prosecution | Joshua B. Goldberg | All communications addressed to Goldberg |
| Notice of Allowance | Pre-issue | Joshua B. Goldberg | Patent approved under Goldberg's name |
| Patent Front Page (Line 74) | Apr 22, 2025 | Joshua B. Goldberg | Public record shows Goldberg |
| NGM Billing Record | Ongoing | Richard Litman (RL) | Internal billing contradicts public record |
Patent 12,510,313 (Docket 33060.76U)
Filed July 23, 2025 (two days post-lawsuit) — Issued January 13, 2026
| Document | Date | Attorney Name | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Power of Attorney | Pre-filing | Joshua B. Goldberg | Goldberg appointed as attorney of record |
| Filing Receipt | Jul 23, 2025 | Joshua B. Goldberg | Filed two days after lawsuit commenced |
| Office Actions | During prosecution | Joshua B. Goldberg | All communications addressed to Goldberg |
| Notice of Allowance | Pre-issue | Joshua B. Goldberg | Patent approved under Goldberg's name |
| Patent Front Page (Line 74) | Jan 13, 2026 | Joshua B. Goldberg | Public record shows Goldberg during active litigation |
| NGM Billing Record | Ongoing | Richard Litman (RL) | Internal billing contradicts public record |
Control Proof for All 905 Patents
The KNPC transition evidence establishes the following conclusions applicable to the entire 905-patent corpus:
- The attorney name on Line 74 is a deliberate choice. Goldberg proved this by putting his own name on KNPC patents while keeping Litman's name on other patents during the same time period. The designation is not automatic, not ministerial, and not controlled by the USPTO — it is chosen by the filing attorney.
- Goldberg had the ability to change the name at any time. The January 2025 switchover proves he could have removed Litman's name years earlier. He chose not to because Litman's name had commercial value with existing clients. Every day between June 15, 2020 and January 14, 2025 that Litman's name appeared on a newly issued patent was a deliberate act by Goldberg.
- The commercial purpose is proven by the billing records. All KNPC matters — even those where Goldberg put his own name on the patent — were billed under Litman's name. This confirms that Litman's name was treated as a revenue-generating asset across NGM's entire patent practice, satisfying the “commercial purpose” element of NY Civil Rights Law § 51.
- The “knowing” element is established. Goldberg signed 16 Powers of Attorney personally (Reg. 44,126) for non-KNPC patents, designating Litman as the attorney of record. He simultaneously filed KNPC patents under his own name. He knew exactly whose name was going on each patent because he was the one making the choice.
- 905 patents × knowing control = 905 separate violations. Each patent where Litman's name appears on Line 74 after June 15, 2020 represents a separate, knowing commercial use of Litman's name without consent, in violation of NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51.
The KNPC portfolio is the Rosetta Stone of this case. It proves that when Goldberg wanted his own name on a patent, he put his own name on it. When he wanted to exploit Litman's reputation, he put Litman's name on it. The choice was always his.