Quantitative assessment of evidentiary strength across all MSJ components
All 10 defenses raised by Goldberg are eliminated on the documentary record.
| # | Evidence | Exhibit | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 905 issued U.S. patents listing "Richard C. Litman" on Line 74 (Attorney, Agent, or Firm) since 6/15/2020 | Exhibit C | ✓In hand |
| 2 | 12 post-SOL-safe patents (issued after 7/21/2024) with Litman on Line 74, OCR-verified from USPTO PDFs | Exhibit A | ✓In hand |
| 3 | 2 "hidden attribution" KSU patents (US 12,227,748 and US 12,303,254) where IFW prosecution files are entirely under Litman's name despite front-page omission | Exhibit V | ✓In hand |
| 4 | 206+ outgoing USPTO documents (Filing Receipts, Office Actions, NOAs, Issue Notifications) across 21 mapped applications, each addressed to "Richard C. Litman / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer" | Exhibit B | ✓In hand |
| 5 | nathlaw.com website listed Litman as "PATENT ATTORNEY" through at least June 21, 2025 (Wayback CDX-verified); removed by September 5, 2025 | Exhibit S | ✓CDX data in hand; screenshots need manual capture |
| 6 | Patent assignment cover sheets signed by Goldberg listing "RICHARD C. LITMAN / NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER" in the correspondent block (Reel 065933/Frame 0139; Reel 065379/Frame 0084) | Exhibit M | ✓In hand |
| 7 | Martha Long solicitation emails stating "I have worked with Richard Litman for 27 years" sent to prospective clients (Al-Harbi 6/15/2023, Lateri 7/10/2023, Won 4/4/2023) | Exhibit F | ✓In hand |
| 8 | 24,526 client-facing emails from Martha Long attaching Litman-named USPTO documents to paying clients | Exhibit F | ✓In hand |
| 9 | Trademark practice name use — 1,813+ trademark emails using Litman's name; outside counsel (Poppiti/Lewis Brisbois) contacting rlitman@nathlaw.com for trademark work (12/13/2023) | Exhibit G | ✓In hand |
| 10 | Third-party database republication — Google Patents, Espacenet, Justia, FPO, Lens.org all display "Richard C. Litman" (est. 9,050+ entries) | Exhibit H | Need screenshots on 3 separate dates |
Goldberg will argue that the name appeared as a matter of USPTO process, not through his personal action.
Goldberg has admitted in verified pleadings that Litman's name appeared on patents and the website after 6/15/2020. The "use" element is conclusively established as a matter of law.
| # | Evidence | Exhibit | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | $18.53 million in fees collected on Litman-originated matters (2020-2025), verified from Goldberg's own financial records | Exhibit K | ✓In hand |
| 2 | 76-100% of firm revenue attributed to "Richard Litman" as responsible attorney in monthly Payment Allocation reports | Exhibit K | ✓In hand |
| 3 | KFU = 467 patents in 2024 with Litman on Line 74; KFU was the world's single largest university patent filer that year (631 patents) | Exhibit C | ✓In hand |
| 4 | nathlaw.com professional listing — listing an attorney as "PATENT ATTORNEY" on a law firm website is classic trade advertising implying availability for hire | Exhibit S | ✓In hand |
| 5 | Martha Long solicitation emails — "I have worked with Richard Litman for 27 years and would be delighted to assist you" — commercial solicitation using Litman's name to attract new clients | Exhibit F | ✓In hand |
| 6 | Al-Harbi inquiry — prospective client specifically asked: "I would like to know how much a consultation with the attorney Mr. Richard C. Litman costs?" — proving commercial drawing power | Exhibit F | ✓In hand |
| 7 | Trademark practice billings — all 9 Nicola Pizza dockets billed under "RL" (Richard Litman); $9,520+ in trust receipts through January 2025 | Exhibit G | ✓In hand |
| 8 | Dakota AG Innovations — client referred to NGM as "The Litman Law office" (October 2024), demonstrating commercial association with Litman's name | Exhibit G | ✓In hand |
| 9 | Goldberg admits commercial relationship — Answer Para. 8: admits he is co-managing partner; Answer Para. 1, 6: admits practice was sold under Combination Agreement | Exhibit O | ✓In hand |
Defense will argue that listing an attorney on a patent is a "required" USPTO formality or incidental government record, not a "use for trade."
Supported by overwhelming documentary evidence. While Goldberg has not admitted this element explicitly, the commercial context is demonstrated by his own financial records showing $18.53 million in revenue under Litman's name.
| # | Evidence | Exhibit | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | No consent document produced in discovery — Goldberg was asked point-blank (Request #1) for "the agreement, license, or consent form." He produced NONE. | Exhibit O, J | ✓In hand |
| 2 | Combination Agreement has no name-use provision — the agreement transferred the "Litman Law Offices, Ltd." service mark, NOT personal name rights on government filings | Exhibit J | ✓In hand |
| 3 | Litman's April 30, 2021 email: "The assignment of the LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. mark does not include the right to use my name separate and apart from the mark" | Exhibit Q | ✓In hand |
| 4 | Litman's April 22, 2021 email: "My not taking action while we sort things out should not be interpreted as a waiver" | Exhibit Q | ✓In hand |
| 5 | Litman's May 1, 2023 email: "Not agreed to by me at anytime" | Exhibit Q | ✓In hand |
| 6 | Litman's January 10, 2023 email: "Our communications should not be interpreted as agreeing to anything" | Exhibit Q | ✓In hand |
| 7 | Litman's July 18, 2023 email: "We need to ensure there is no likelihood of confusion resulting from NGM's use of my name" | Exhibit Q | ✓In hand |
| 8 | Litman's June 24, 2025 email: "There is no basis without my consent that I should still be listed on USPTO filings associated with NGM... it has to stop" | Exhibit Q | ✓In hand |
| 9 | Litman's June 28, 2025 formal objection to NGM's lawyer reserving "all rights and remedies" | Exhibit Q | ✓In hand |
| 10 | Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821) — Goldberg's own recorded USPTO document states: "Assignor owns his name, signature, voice, image, photograph or likeness" — contradicts any consent theory | Exhibit N | ✓In hand |
| 11 | Arbitration decision (June 14, 2023) — adjudicated the parties' dispute; any use after this date is with full knowledge of adverse claims | Exhibit O | ✓Date confirmed |
| 12 | 5 blocked client notification attempts (2021-2025) — Litman attempted to notify clients of his departure; Goldberg prevented notification | Exhibit L | ✓In hand |
| 13 | Tanya Harkins email (5/21/2021): "he doesn't work here anymore" — Goldberg CC'd, establishing actual knowledge | Exhibit I | ✓In hand |
Answer Para. 72: "Defendant further denies that any alleged use of Plaintiff's name, identity, and/or reputation occurred without the consent of Plaintiff." Affirmative Defense #10 asserts "implied and/or express consent."
Supported by documentary evidence that eliminates any genuine factual dispute. The absence of a written consent document, combined with multiple written objections from Litman, establishes this element. However, Litman's non-consent declaration/affidavit is needed to complete the evidentiary record for MSJ purposes.
Litman non-consent declaration — Litman must state under oath: "I did not authorize or consent to the use of my name on any patent filings, USPTO documents, or firm website after [date]." This is the HIGHEST PRIORITY item before filing MSJ.
| # | Evidence | Exhibit | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 16 POAs personally signed by Goldberg (Reg. 44126) — each designating CN-37833 (NGM) as attorneys of record, each resulting in a patent with Litman on Line 74 | Exhibit D, P | ✓In hand |
| 2 | 12 of 16 POAs are post-arbitration (signed after 6/14/2023) — deliberate, knowing acts | Exhibit D | ✓In hand |
| 3 | Most recent Goldberg POA: January 17, 2025 (App 19/028,392, KSU) — 7 months after post-SOL-safe cutoff | Exhibit V | ✓In hand |
| 4 | December 21, 2023 "bombshell" — Goldberg signed BOTH a POA and a KFU assignment cover sheet for App 18/392,663 on the same day, 190 days after arbitration | Exhibit M, P | ✓In hand |
| 5 | October 24, 2023 dual-action — Goldberg signed both POA and application filing transmittal for App 18/383,448 on the same day; clearest signature image in evidence set | Exhibit M, P | ✓In hand |
| 6 | Goldberg's January 17, 2023 email — explains POA mechanism: "Either a withdrawal of our Power of Attorney, or some other document transferring rights back to the inventor, needs to be filed" — demonstrates he knew exactly how the name-use mechanism worked | Exhibit I | ✓In hand |
| 7 | Goldberg's June 19, 2023 email — directed POA filing 5 days after arbitration: "yes, it is fine to send the POA to the client after the application is filed" | Exhibit I | ✓In hand |
| 8 | Goldberg's September 30, 2024 email — "the previous attorney, apparently still the attorney of record according to the USPTO" — understood the persistence of the attorney designation and exploited it | Exhibit I | ✓In hand |
| 9 | KNPC control proof — all 3 KNPC patents list Goldberg (not Litman) on Line 74, but all KNPC matters billed under "Richard Litman (RL)"; proves Goldberg chose whose name appeared on each patent | Exhibit E | ✓In hand |
| 10 | PTOL-85B Box 2 instruction: "If no name is listed, no name will be printed" — 18 PTOL-85B forms listing Litman typed by Lafave (Reg. 71013) across 169 days and 3 institutional clients; zero exceptions | Exhibit D | ✓In hand |
| 11 | Goldberg admits co-managing partner status — Answer Para. 8: establishes operational control over firm | Exhibit O | ✓In hand |
Answer Para. 33: "Defendant denies" that he "caused" Litman's name to appear on patents. Defense argued at December 5, 2025 hearing that patent filings were firm-level acts, not personal acts by Goldberg.
Supported by direct documentary evidence. Goldberg's denial in Para. 33 is contradicted by 16 federal government forms bearing his own personal signature. This is not a credibility determination for a jury — it is a documentary contradiction that can be resolved on summary judgment.
Goldberg's Answer (Doc #65, filed 01/20/2026) raises ten affirmative defenses. Each is addressed below with the evidence that eliminates it.
Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Effect on MSJ: Eliminates the defense. Multiple publications fall squarely within the limitations period. No genuine issue of material fact.
Same analysis as Defense #1. Duplicative pleading.
Plaintiff's claims are barred because the publications are merely republications of a single work.
Effect on MSJ: Eliminates the defense. No court has applied the single publication rule to treat hundreds of different patents as a single "edition."
Complaint fails to state a cause of action.
Effect on MSJ: Eliminated by prior court ruling.
Plaintiff's claims are barred by his own conduct — delay, acquiescence, or unclean hands.
Effect on MSJ: Eliminates the defense. Litman's documented objections and Goldberg's blocking of client notification negate any claim of acquiescence.
The arbitration resolved this dispute.
Effect on MSJ: Eliminated by prior court ruling and the fact that post-arbitration conduct created new claims.
Issues decided in arbitration preclude relitigation.
Effect on MSJ: Eliminated. No genuine issue of material fact.
Plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate his damages.
Effect on MSJ: Eliminates the defense. Plaintiff took every available step; defendant controlled the instrumentality of harm.
Plaintiff suffered no cognizable damages.
Effect on MSJ: Eliminates the defense. Damages are supported by Goldberg's own financial records and the inherent harm of unauthorized name use on government records.
"Plaintiff's claims are barred based on his implied and/or express consent."
Effect on MSJ: This defense fails as a matter of law. The statute requires written consent. None exists. Multiple written objections from Litman affirmatively negate any claim of implied consent. The defense does not create a genuine issue of material fact.
| Evidence | Amount | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total fees collected under Litman's name (2020-2025) | $18,526,460 | Goldberg's master "Litman 2025 Summary_May.xlsx" | ✓In hand |
| Litman's contractual 20% already received | ($3,705,292) | Same spreadsheet | ✓In hand |
| Remaining profits from unauthorized use | $14,821,168 | 80% of collected fees retained by NGM/Goldberg | ✓Calculated |
| Litman-originated revenue as % of firm total | 76-100% | Monthly Payment Allocation reports (19 months showing 100%) | ✓In hand |
| KFU revenue alone | $12.34 million | KFU receivables file | ✓In hand |
| KSU revenue | $3.91 million | KSU invoice summaries | ✓In hand |
| Goldberg personal fee credits from Litman work | $207,135 (March 2024 alone) | Payment Allocation report | ✓In hand |
| Evidence | Amount | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Additional 20% royalty on unauthorized name use | $3,705,292 | 20% of $18.53M — reasonable royalty for commercial name licensing | ✓Calculated |
| Market-tested value of Litman's name | $214,532 | Purchase price paid by NGM for "Litman Law Offices" service mark | ✓In hand |
| Evidence | Amount | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outstanding AR as of June 2025 | $3,183,566 | Invoice Summary with AR | ✓In hand |
| Estimated future 20% payments from AR | $636,713 | 20% of fee portion of AR | ✓Calculated |
Section 51 authorizes exemplary damages for knowing, willful use. The following evidence establishes willfulness beyond dispute:
| # | Willfulness Indicator | Evidence | Exhibit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Post-arbitration POA signing | 12 of 16 Goldberg-signed POAs executed after June 14, 2023 arbitration | Exhibit D |
| 2 | December 21, 2023 dual-action | Goldberg signed both POA and assignment cover sheet on the same day, 190 days after arbitration | Exhibit M, P |
| 3 | Multiple written objections ignored | 4 non-consent communications from Litman (2021-2025) | Exhibit Q |
| 4 | Formal legal objection ignored | June 28, 2025 letter to Goldberg's counsel | Exhibit Q |
| 5 | Actual knowledge of departure | Tanya Harkins: "he doesn't work here anymore" (Goldberg CC'd, 5/21/2021) | Exhibit I |
| 6 | Mechanism knowledge | Goldberg's 1/17/2023 email explaining POA controls attorney status | Exhibit I |
| 7 | Continued use 5 days post-arbitration | Goldberg's 6/19/2023 email directing POA filing | Exhibit I |
| 8 | Client notification blocked | 5 attempts by Litman to notify clients, each prevented | Exhibit L |
| 9 | Disability vulnerability | Goldberg admits Litman became disabled June 2020 (Answer Para. 39) | Exhibit O |
| 10 | Financial motive | $18.53M collected; KFU generated $725K-$1M/month; Goldberg personally took fee credits | Exhibit K |
| 11 | Pattern, not incident | 16 POAs over 22 months (March 2023 - January 2025); 905 patents over 5 years | Exhibit D, C |
| 12 | Continued after lawsuit filed | KNPC application filed 7/23/2025, 2 days after lawsuit | Exhibit E |
| Multiplier | Amount | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| 2x conservative royalty | $7,410,584 | State Farm v. Campbell single-digit ratio |
| 3x conservative royalty | $11,115,876 | Egregious pattern; 5+ years; 14 deliberate signings |
| 1x full profits | $14,821,168 | Matching compensatory with punitive |
| # | Ongoing Use | Status | Exhibit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Litman's name on CN-37833 | Unknown whether removed | Discovery demand needed |
| 2 | 905 issued patents permanently listing Litman on Line 74 | Cannot be changed — permanent government records | Exhibit C |
| 3 | Third-party database entries (Google Patents, Espacenet, etc.) | Ongoing — databases continuously index USPTO data | Exhibit H |
| 4 | nathlaw.com | Litman removed by September 5, 2025 | Exhibit S |
| 5 | KNPC App 19/277,913 filed 7/23/2025 | Active application, 2 days post-lawsuit | Exhibit E |
| 6 | Certificate of Correction filed June 10, 2025 (US 12,303,254) | Post-issuance activity under CN-37833 | Exhibit V |
Injunctive relief remains appropriate to prevent future use and to require Goldberg to withdraw any pending POAs or change CN-37833 records to remove Litman's name.
| Exhibit | Short Title | Description | Elements Supported |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Post-SOL-Safe Patent List | 13 patents issued after 7/21/2024 with Litman on Line 74 | 1, 2; SOL defense |
| B | Mechanism of Liability | POA-to-patent chain; 206+ outgoing USPTO documents across 21 applications | 1, 4 |
| C | 905-Patent Dataset | Full backbone dataset of all Litman-named patents since 6/15/2020 | 1, 2; scale/damages |
| D | POA Signature Table | All 16 Goldberg-signed POAs with dates, registration numbers, and resulting patents | 4 (causation/personal liability) |
| E | KNPC Control Proof | 3 KNPC patents showing Goldberg on Line 74 while billing under "RL" — deliberate choice evidence | 4 (causation); willfulness |
| F | Client-Facing Publications | 24,526 Martha Long emails; "27 years" solicitations; Al-Harbi inquiry | 1, 2 |
| G | Trademark Name Use | 1,813 trademark emails; Nicola Pizza case study; Kline/Poppiti evidence | 1, 2 |
| H | Foreseeable Republication | 9,050+ third-party database entries across 10 platforms | 1; SOL defense; damages |
| I | Admissions Inventory | 12 admissions from 6 sources including Answer, discovery responses, and emails | All elements |
| J | Combination Agreement Analysis | No name-use provision in the agreement Goldberg relies upon for consent | 3 (consent) |
| K | Financial Summary | $18.53M collected under Litman's name; 76-100% firm revenue; Payment Allocation reports | 2, 4; damages |
| L | Blocked Client Notifications | 5 documented notification attempts prevented by Goldberg | 3 (consent); willfulness |
| M | Personal Liability Memo | Goldberg's personal acts mapped to Turane standard; dual-action days | 4 (personal liability) |
| N | Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment | USPTO Reel 007281, Frame 0821 — "Assignor owns his name" | 3 (destroys consent defense) |
| O | Goldberg's Verified Answer | Doc #65 — Admissions in Paras. 32, 72, 39, 8; all 10 affirmative defenses | All elements |
| P | POA PDFs (16 signed originals) | Physical PDF images of Goldberg's signatures on PTO/AIA/82A forms | 4 (causation) |
| Q | Non-Consent Communications | 4 explicit non-consent emails (2021-2025) + June 28, 2025 formal objection | 3 (consent) |
| R | Arbitration & Damages Memo | $316,869.92 award analysis; profits-derived and royalty damages theories | Damages; res judicata defense |
| S | Website Evidence | nathlaw.com — Litman listed as "PATENT ATTORNEY" through 6/21/2025; CDX verification | 1, 2 |
| T | Four Categories Framework | Unified framework: USPTO + client-facing + trademark + republication = 36,500+ acts | All elements; damages |
| U | Settlement Leverage Analysis | PTOL-85B Box 2 findings; Lafave personal liability; OED exposure | 4; willfulness (INTERNAL ONLY) |
| V | Hidden Attribution Patents | US 12,227,748 and US 12,303,254 — full IFW chain under Litman's name despite front-page gap | 1, 4; recency |
| W | Goldberg Discovery Responses | Response to Request #1 (no consent document); Response #5 (SharePoint produced) | 3 (consent) |
| Priority | Item | Why It Matters | Who Must Act | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Litman non-consent declaration/affidavit | Required to complete Element 3 on MSJ; without it, defense can argue implied consent survives summary judgment | Counsel + Litman | Not yet drafted |
| CRITICAL | Court reporter transcript of 12/05/2025 oral decision | Judge Maslow's reasoning for keeping Count V alive — essential for understanding the legal framework the court has already applied | Counsel | OBTAINED (120525litman.pdf, found in Gmail) |
| HIGH | NGM billing records for KFU/KSU/KISR matters (2020-2025) | Proves Element 4 (benefit) and establishes damages with specificity | Discovery demand | Not yet demanded |
| HIGH | Goldberg K-1 distributions / LLC operating agreement | Proves personal financial benefit from unauthorized name use | Discovery demand | Not yet demanded |
| HIGH | Goldberg Declaration from EDNY case (filed in support of Defendant's Motion for Sanctions — separate from DN 25; Exhibit C to DN 25 is text message excerpts) | Any sworn statements are binding admissions in this case | Obtain from EDNY docket | Not yet obtained |
| MODERATE | Website screenshots (June 21 vs. Sept 5, 2025) | Visual evidence of removal timeline | Manual Wayback browser capture | Need manual capture |
| MODERATE | 3 assignment PDFs from Assignment Center | Complete documentary chain for 3 applications | Manual download | Need manual download |
| MODERATE | Google Patents / Espacenet / Justia screenshots | Proves Category 4 (foreseeable republication) ongoing | Manual capture with timestamps | Not yet captured |
| LOW | Post-6/15/2025 patent search results | Extends the publication timeline into the latest period | Manual USPTO Patent Public Search | Searched; 0 results |
| Priority | Item | Why It Matters | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Goldberg's RFA Responses (02/17/2026) | Multiple admissions under oath — admits name appeared on patents and website, admits co-managing partner status, admits Litman disabled | NYSCEF / Discovery | OBTAINED & analyzed |
| CRITICAL | Goldberg's BOP Response | Claims Litman's name was maintained "purely as a courtesy" — devastating admission of deliberate name use without business justification | NYSCEF / Discovery | OBTAINED & analyzed |
| CRITICAL | Federal Exhibit A — Authenticated POAs | Goldberg's own lawyer authenticated the POA signatures in federal court (EDNY) — eliminates any future authentication challenge | EDNY Case 1:25-cv-04048 | OBTAINED & analyzed |
| CRITICAL | PI Opposition — Revenue Share Admissions | Goldberg's federal opposition admits ongoing revenue-sharing arrangement — proves commercial benefit element | EDNY Case 1:25-cv-04048 | OBTAINED & analyzed |
| HIGH | Professional Liability Insurance Policy | Lists Litman as "Of Counsel" — proves NGM held Litman out as affiliated with the firm to third parties (insurers) | Uncle's Google Drive | OBTAINED & analyzed |
| HIGH | Text Messages (51 pages analyzed) | Litman uses word "fraud" about Goldberg's conduct; documents real-time concern about unauthorized name use | Uncle's Google Drive | OBTAINED & analyzed |
| HIGH | Arbitration Award (fully analyzed) | Confirms scope was limited to financial disputes; name rights were NOT addressed — destroys res judicata defense | Arbitration record | OBTAINED & analyzed |
| HIGH | Combination Agreement + Amendment | Zero provisions authorizing use of Litman's name on patent filings — no consent clause exists | Court filings / Discovery | OBTAINED & analyzed |
| HIGH | NGM Client List (631 of 1,107 clients) | Shows scale of client base where Litman's name was used commercially | Discovery production | OBTAINED & analyzed |
| HIGH | WIP Report (453 RL matters) | 453 active matters attributed to "RL" (Richard Litman) in billing system while he was disabled | Discovery production | OBTAINED & analyzed |
| HIGH | Trust Ledger ($32.7M) | $32.7 million in trust under "Responsible Lawyer 418 (Richard Litman)" — quantifies commercial exploitation | Discovery production | OBTAINED & analyzed |
| MODERATE | Gmail Sweep: 938 attachments from 2 accounts | Patent-related attachments bearing Litman's name sent via email — each a separate Section 51 publication per uncle's theory | Gmail (2 accounts) | OBTAINED & analyzed |
Depositions must be completed by June 2, 2026.
| # | Question | What It Establishes | Key Exhibit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | "You admit in Paragraph 32 of your Answer that Plaintiff's name appeared on patent front pages after 6/15/2020. Show me any document where Litman gave written consent to that use." | Locks in absence of written consent (Element 3) | Answer (Exhibit O) |
| 2 | "You signed this PTO/AIA/82A form on [date]. At that time, did you have Richard Litman's written permission to list him as attorney of record?" | Personal causation for each POA (Element 4) | POA PDFs (Exhibit P) |
| 3 | "Your January 17, 2023 email explains that a withdrawal of POA is required to change attorney status. Did you ever file a withdrawal of Litman's POA?" | Proves knowing, deliberate maintenance of Litman's name | Email (Exhibit I) |
| 4 | "On December 21, 2023, you signed both a POA and an assignment cover sheet for the same application. This was 190 days after the arbitration. Why?" | Establishes post-arbitration willfulness | Exhibit M, P |
| 5 | "The KNPC patents list you on Line 74, not Litman. Why was your name used on KNPC patents but Litman's name on 905 others?" | Proves deliberate choice in name designation | Exhibit E |
| 6 | "What was 'The Pad'?" | Establishes Goldberg's tracking of Litman-originated work | The Pad document |
| 7 | "Who directed Martha Long to send solicitation emails stating 'I have worked with Richard Litman for 27 years'?" | Establishes direction and control of client-facing name use | Exhibit F |
| 8 | "Did you ever notify KFU, KSU, or any other client that Litman was no longer actively practicing at NGM?" | Proves deliberate concealment | Exhibit L |
| # | Question | What It Establishes |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | "You wrote 'he doesn't work here anymore' about Litman in May 2021. What did you understand about his status at that time?" | Internal knowledge of Litman's departure |
| 2 | "Was Goldberg aware that Litman was no longer working at the firm?" | Imputed knowledge to Goldberg (CC'd on the email) |
| # | Question | What It Establishes |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | "You sent over 29,000 emails to KFU clients using dockets assigned to Litman. Who directed you to use those docket designations?" | Chain of command for name use |
| 2 | "You sent solicitation emails saying 'I have worked with Richard Litman for 27 years.' Who told you to write that?" | Direction of solicitation activity |
| 3 | "Did you know that Litman was no longer actively practicing at NGM when you sent these emails?" | Knowledge element |
| # | Question | What It Establishes |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | "You signed 18 PTOL-85B forms listing 'Richard C. Litman' in Box 2. The form states: 'If no name is listed, no name will be printed.' Who directed you to write Litman's name?" | Either implicates Goldberg or establishes independent personal liability |
| 2 | "For App 18/379,906, you signed both the POA and the PTOL-85B. Did anyone direct you to list Litman as attorney?" | Establishes sole responsibility for at least one patent |
| # | Question | What It Establishes |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | "You CC'd Litman on 91% of your 2,678 trademark emails. Who directed you to include him?" | Direction and control of trademark name use |
| 2 | "Whose clients were these trademark clients?" | Client origination; commercial exploitation |
| Priority | Document | Why It Matters | Vehicle |
|---|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | All agreements between Litman and NGM regarding name use, of-counsel arrangements, or licensing of professional identity | If any consent document exists, it must be produced; if none exists, that is dispositive | Interrogatory + Document Demand |
| HIGH | NGM billing records, invoices, and time sheets for all matters where "Richard Litman" appears as responsible attorney (2020-2025) | Quantifies damages; proves Element 4 (benefit) | Document Demand |
| HIGH | Goldberg's K-1 distributions, profit-sharing statements, and NGM LLC operating agreement | Proves personal financial benefit | Document Demand |
| HIGH | "The Pad" spreadsheet or tracking system | Proves Goldberg tracked Litman-originated work; knowledge and intent | Document Demand |
| HIGH | All correspondence with KFU, KSU, KISR about Litman's status (2020-2025) | Proves client notification was blocked; intent | Document Demand |
| HIGH | Goldberg Declaration from EDNY Case 1:25-cv-04048 (filed in support of Defendant's Motion for Sanctions — separate from DN 25; Exhibit C to DN 25 is text message excerpts) | Binding admissions under oath | Subpoena or stipulation |
| MODERATE | CN-37833 account records showing all practitioners listed | Proves Litman's name was maintained on the customer number | Document Demand |
| MODERATE | NGM deposit account 14-0112 transaction records (2020-2025) | Shows NGM's ongoing financial control of prosecution | Document Demand |
| MODERATE | Internal emails discussing Litman's name on filings or the decision to maintain it | Direct evidence of intent | Document Demand |
| LOW | Origination credit reports from Soluno billing system | Corroborates revenue attribution | Document Demand |
The MSJ brief follows a 5-point structure, each supported by documentary evidence now in hand:
| # | Brief Section | Core Argument | Key Evidence | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Use of Name | 905 patents listing Litman on Line 74 after 6/15/2020; Goldberg admits this in Answer Para. 32 and RFA responses | Patent CSV, Answer, RFA Responses | READY |
| 2 | Commercial Purpose | $18.5M revenue under Litman's name; $32.7M trust ledger; 453 WIP matters; PI Opposition revenue-share admissions | Trust Ledger, WIP Report, PI Opposition, BOP Response ("purely as a courtesy") | READY |
| 3 | Without Consent | Combination Agreement has zero name provisions; Goldberg produced no consent document; 5+ explicit objection emails; RFA responses | Combination Agreement, Discovery Responses, Objection Emails, RFA Responses | NEARLY READY (Litman declaration needed) |
| 4 | Goldberg Caused It | 16 POA signatures (authenticated in federal court via Exhibit A); switchover proves ability to control; BOP "courtesy" admission | POA PDFs, Federal Exhibit A, Switchover Analysis, BOP Response | READY |
| 5 | Damages | $18.5M base; $32.7M trust; professional liability policy listing Litman as "Of Counsel"; text messages showing emotional harm ("fraud") | Financial Records, Trust Ledger, Insurance Policy, Text Messages | READY |
| Component | Status | Remaining Action |
|---|---|---|
| Element 1 (Use of Name) | READY | None required — admitted in verified pleadings |
| Element 2 (Trade Purpose) | READY | $32.7M trust ledger + PI Opposition revenue admissions now in hand |
| Element 3 (Without Consent) | NEARLY READY | Combination Agreement (zero name provisions) + RFA admissions obtained; Litman declaration still required |
| Element 4 (Causation/Personal Liability) | READY | None required |
| Affirmative Defenses | ALL DEFEATED | None required |
| Damages | FRAMEWORK READY | Trust ledger ($32.7M), WIP (453 matters), insurance policy, text messages all obtained |
The case is strong enough for MSJ filing once the Litman non-consent declaration is obtained. The remaining discovery items (billing records, K-1s, deposition testimony) would strengthen the damages case but are not prerequisites for establishing liability on summary judgment.