POINT III LITMAN IS ENTITLED TO SUBSTANTIAL COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES A. The Statutory Framework Permits Full Recovery As established in Points I and II, Goldberg is liable under Civil Rights Law § 51 for the unauthorized use of Litman's name. The question here is the measure of that liability. New York Civil Rights Law § 51 authorizes a plaintiff whose name has been misappropriated for commercial purposes to recover: (1) injunctive relief; (2) compensatory damages; (3) punitive or exemplary damages where the unauthorized use is willful; and (4) reasonable attorney's fees. The statute imposes no cap on damages. See N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 51; Lohan v. Perez, 924 F. Supp. 2d 447, 456 (E.D.N.Y. 2013). New York courts have recognized three well-established methodologies for measuring compensatory damages under § 51: (a) the defendant's profits attributable to the unauthorized use; (b) a reasonable royalty or licensing fee; and (c) injury to the plaintiff's professional reputation and earning capacity. Litman is entitled to recovery under each. B. Goldberg's Profits Attributable to the Unauthorized Use of Litman's Name The most direct measure of damages is the profit Goldberg derived from the very name he misappropriated. The evidence on this point is overwhelming and comes from Goldberg's own records. 1. The Trust Ledger quantifies Goldberg's exploitation. NGM's own Trust Ledger, generated June 26, 2025, contains a field labeled "Introducing Lawyer" that filters by attorney origination. (See Exhibit __, NGM Trust Ledger.) When filtered for "RL — Richard Litman," the ledger shows total receipts of $32,708,669.08 across 2,214 dockets. (Id.) Of this sum, $24,509,250.24 — fully 75% of all receipts — was collected during the statutory period, i.e., after June 15, 2020, across 1,207 active dockets. (Id.) These are not estimates or projections. They are Goldberg's own accounting records, maintained in the ordinary course of business, that tag each dollar to Litman's name as the originating attorney. 2. The six institutional clients prove the name drove the revenue. The Trust Ledger further breaks down by client. The six institutional clients whose patent work Goldberg prosecuted under Litman's name account for the following receipts: Client | Receipts | Dockets | Trust Balance King Faisal University | $13,926,785 | 298 | $834,610 King Saud University | $6,867,794 | 210 | -- UAEU | $1,733,750 | 33 | -- Kuwait University | $540,889 | 67 | -- KISR | $503,819 | 14 | -- Dasman Diabetes Institute | $176,470 | 16 | -- Combined | $23,749,507 | 638 | (See Exhibit __, Trust Ledger Client Summary.) These six clients alone generated $23,749,507 in receipts — and every patent filed on their behalf during the statutory period bore Litman's name on Line 74 of the patent grant, in Powers of Attorney signed by Goldberg, in filing receipts, and on the NGM website. The name was not incidental to the revenue. These clients retained the firm because of Litman's decades-long reputation in international patent prosecution; Goldberg exploited that reputation by continuing to hold Litman out as their attorney of record for nearly five years after Litman's departure. 3. Goldberg's own financial records confirm the dependency — and reveal a massive accounting gap. Goldberg's internal financial records independently confirm that he collected $18.53 million under Litman's name between 2020 and 2025. (See Exhibit __, Goldberg Financial Summary.) The same records establish that the firm was 76-79% dependent on Litman-originated work during this period. (Id.) Goldberg kept 80% of this revenue for himself, paying Litman only 20%. (Id.) The 80/20 split — applied to $24.5 million in post-SOL receipts — means Goldberg personally retained approximately $19.6 million generated by work conducted under Litman's misappropriated name. However, a forensic comparison of Goldberg's internal Revenue Workup against the trust ledger reveals a $16,202,064 accounting gap: the trust ledger shows $32,708,669 in total receipts, while Goldberg's Revenue Workup accounts for only $16,506,605. (See Exhibit __, Financial Analysis.) This discrepancy is not attributable to rounding or methodology. King Faisal University and King Saud University — the firm's two largest clients, representing 84% of all payments — appear with $0 in the "Receipts" column of Goldberg's Revenue sheet despite generating over $20 million in trust receipts. (Id.) The systematic exclusion of the two largest revenue sources from Goldberg's internal accounting is powerful evidence of financial manipulation designed to understate Litman's royalty base. The gap has direct damages implications. Under the trust receipt method — which uses the firm's own contemporaneous banking records rather than Goldberg's self-prepared summaries — Litman is owed $3,472,955, calculated as 20% of trust receipts attributable to Litman-originated clients. (Id.) Goldberg's own Workup, by contrast, claims Litman has been overpaid by $673.80. (Id.) The $3,473,629 difference between these two calculations ($3,472,955 owed vs. $673.80 overpaid) demonstrates the scale of the accounting manipulation. The arbitrator in the McCammon proceeding independently confirmed the commercial value of Litman's name. The Arbitration Award characterizes the 20% payments as "a payment made in exchange for a privilege, in this case the privilege of servicing the lucrative client base brought by Litman to NGM." (Arbitration Award, June 14, 2023, Case No. 2022001552.) The Combination Agreement's revenue-sharing structure further confirms the commercial value. Under the Agreement and Amendment, Litman was entitled to 20% of Revenue from "Litman Originated Clients" — defined as clients engaged "as a primary consequence of the efforts, reputation or other actions of LITMAN." (Combination Agreement ¶ 8; Amendment ¶ 1.) This definition explicitly ties Litman's reputation to the revenue stream. Goldberg collected $24.5 million in post-SOL receipts from Litman Originated Clients while simultaneously using Litman's name on the patents generated by those clients — then paid Litman only 20% while retaining 80% for himself. The Combination Agreement's definition of "Litman Originated Client" includes clients engaged "as a primary consequence of the efforts, reputation or other actions of LITMAN" — explicitly linking Litman's professional reputation to the revenue stream. On December 23, 2024, Goldberg texted Litman: "KFU is winding up with 631 patents this year, we hit their goal of 600 for the year." (Exhibit __, Text Messages, p. 38.) These 631 patents — each bearing Litman's name — were not incidental to the revenue. They were the revenue. 4. Outstanding receivables and ceased payments confirm ongoing financial harm. As of December 31, 2025, $1,070,985.64 in outstanding receivables remains attributable to Litman-originated clients — 100% of the firm's outstanding receivables. (See Exhibit __, Financial Analysis.) These receivables represent fees billed under Litman's name that have not yet been collected, further confirming the ongoing commercial exploitation. The 2025 accounts receivable data independently confirms the scale. Goldberg billed $1,464,572 in 2025, with $990,089 remaining outstanding as of June 2025 — 100% from Litman-originated clients. (See Exhibit __, 2025 Accounts Receivable.) King Saud University alone owes $733,302. (Id.) Additionally, the KFU Billing Trust Summary prepared by Litman (Exhibit A) calculates a $13.9 million recovery opportunity from King Faisal University alone: $9.7 million in unbilled fees, $2.6 million in trust balance, and $1.6 million in unpaid 20% share owed to Litman. (See Exhibit __, KFU Billing Trust Summary.) These figures demonstrate that the commercial exploitation of Litman's name was not winding down — it was generating substantial ongoing receivables and unbilled work product, all attributed to an attorney who could not perform the work. Goldberg ceased all royalty payments to Litman after May 2025, leaving $246,628 owed as of December 2025. (Id.) The cessation of payments coincided with Litman's objections to the name use — effectively punishing Litman for asserting his rights while continuing to collect fees on matters bearing his name. Goldberg's BOP Response (February 26, 2026) admits as much: his Fifth Affirmative Defense concedes that "Plaintiff has received and is receiving compensation for collected fees for work completed for originated clients during the period of time from June 15, 2020 through June 15, 2025." (Exhibit __, BOP Response, Fifth Affirmative Defense.) The use of "is receiving" in the present tense confirms the ongoing financial relationship — while the actual payments have stopped. 5. The 20 largest transactions confirm the pattern. The 20 largest individual post-SOL trust transactions range from $297,000 to $1.44 million, and 18 of the 20 involve King Faisal University. (See Exhibit __, Trust Ledger Transaction Detail.) Each of these transactions flowed through dockets on which Litman's name appeared as attorney of record — a name Goldberg placed there by his own hand through 16 personally signed Powers of Attorney. C. A Reasonable Royalty Measure Independently Supports Substantial Damages Even if this Court were to decline a full disgorgement of profits, Litman is entitled to the reasonable royalty Goldberg would have had to pay for a license to use Litman's name in commercial patent practice. The royalty methodology asks: what would a willing licensor and willing licensee have agreed upon for the right to use Litman's name and professional identity in patent prosecution? The answer is established by Goldberg's own conduct. In 2017, NGM paid $214,532 to acquire the "Litman Law Offices" service mark. (See Exhibit __, Service Mark Purchase Records.) That payment — made when the parties were still working together — is a direct market valuation of the commercial worth of Litman's name in the patent field, and it was made before the period of unauthorized use that generated $24.5 million in receipts. The 2017 price represents the floor, not the ceiling, of the name's licensing value. The insurance market provides additional evidence of the name's commercial value. NGM paid $38,260 in annual premiums for professional liability coverage that listed Litman as "Of Counsel." (See Exhibit __, Professional Liability Policy.) Insurance underwriters price risk based on the composition of the insured firm; Litman's inclusion as "Of Counsel" was a material representation that affected the premium. This third-party market transaction — in which Goldberg personally represented Litman's association with the firm to a regulated insurer — independently confirms the commercial value of the name use. A reasonable royalty calculated as a percentage of post-SOL revenue yields the following range: - At 10% of $24,509,250: $2,450,925 - At 20% (the share Goldberg actually paid Litman before ceasing payment): $4,901,850 - At 33% (standard contingency rate benchmark): $8,088,053 Any figure within this range is conservative given that 76-79% of the firm's entire revenue depended on the name Goldberg refused to stop using. D. Litman Has Suffered Concrete Injury to His Professional Reputation and Earning Capacity Litman's name now appears on 905 United States patents issued between June 15, 2020 and January 14, 2025, identifying him as the attorney of record for prosecution work he did not perform, did not supervise, and could not have supervised — as Goldberg himself admits Litman became physically disabled in June 2020. (Answer ¶ 39.) These patent records are permanent. They are republished on multiple global patent databases, including Google Patents, Lens.org, and Free Patents Online. They cannot be amended or withdrawn. For the remainder of his professional life, Litman's name will be associated with the quality — or lack thereof — of patent prosecution conducted entirely by Goldberg and his staff. This is not a speculative harm. Litman's professional identity as a patent attorney was his life's work. Every one of those 905 patents is now a permanent public record tying Litman to work product over which he exercised no quality control. Any future malpractice claim, any patent invalidation, any prosecution deficiency in those 905 files will be attributed to Litman in public records and in the professional community. Goldberg's own June 16, 2025 Client List Report confirms the full scope of what was exploited. That report — generated by Goldberg himself — shows that Litman originated 674 clients with 7,216 dockets. (See Exhibit __, NGM Client List Report, June 16, 2025.) This is not a peripheral association. It is the entirety of the practice built under Litman's name — client relationships permanently tied to his identity in 905 patents and thousands of docket entries. These relationships represent the professional legacy of a career spanning decades. Goldberg exploited that legacy by continuing to hold Litman out as an active attorney of record while Litman could not practice, could not supervise the work, and had no control over the quality of what was filed under his name. The harm is compounded by Goldberg's ultimate response to Litman's objections. On July 18, 2025, Litman texted: "My personal emails have been eliminated from litman@4patent.com and the Nath law account. Is that something you can correct?" Goldberg replied: "It should be. Let me find out from IT what happened." Litman continued: "Same with NathLaw.com. This whole thing is really affecting me." (Exhibit __, Text Messages, p. 51.) Goldberg controlled even Litman's digital identity — the email addresses and website domain bearing Litman's name — and could terminate Litman's access at will while continuing to use that name on patent filings. E. Goldberg's Willful and Continuous Misappropriation Warrants Punitive Damages Section 51 expressly authorizes exemplary damages where the defendant's conduct is willful. See N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 51. Goldberg's conduct does not merely meet this standard; it defines it. 1. Goldberg had actual knowledge and continued anyway. The evidence of willfulness is not circumstantial. It is direct: - On April 30, 2021, Litman explicitly informed Goldberg that his name rights had not been transferred. (See Exhibit __, Litman email dated 4/30/2021.) Goldberg continued using Litman's name for nearly four more years thereafter. - On May 21, 2021, Goldberg's own employee, Tanya Harkins, wrote in an email on which Goldberg was copied: "he doesn't work here anymore." (See Exhibit __, Harkins Email dated 5/21/2021.) Yet Litman's name remained on the firm website and on every patent filed thereafter. - On September 30, 2024, Goldberg himself wrote in an email: "the previous attorney, apparently still the attorney of record according to the USPTO." (See Exhibit __, Goldberg Email dated 9/30/2024.) This is an admission that Goldberg knew Litman's name was still being used — and did nothing to correct it for another four months. - Goldberg received 1,598 USPTO notification emails at his personal email address, each one confirming that Litman's name appeared as attorney of record on an active patent application. (See Exhibit __, USPTO Notification Summary.) He cannot claim ignorance of what he was notified of 1,598 times. - In opposing Litman's motion for a preliminary injunction, Goldberg's own counsel described the continued listing of Litman's name on the NGM website as maintained "purely as a courtesy." (See Exhibit __, PI Opposition Brief.) This admission is devastating to any claim that the name use was ministerial or automatic. A "courtesy" is an act of discretion — it is extended voluntarily, not compelled by circumstance. Goldberg's counsel thus conceded that the decision to display Litman's name was a choice Goldberg made and could have unmade at any time. - In the same PI Opposition, Goldberg's counsel described the Combination Agreement's revenue-sharing arrangement, thereby admitting on the record that Goldberg understood Litman's name to have commercial value tied to a revenue stream. (See Exhibit __, PI Opposition Brief.) A defendant who acknowledges in court filings that the plaintiff's name generates revenue, and who simultaneously displays that name on his firm's website and on patent filings, cannot credibly deny that his use of the name was for "advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade" within the meaning of § 51. - On January 30, 2023, Goldberg texted Litman: "if you are on disability, what would be considered legal vs. fraud? I don't want ANY of us having to face a fraud issue. I.e., can you be an ACTIVE Senior Counsel while on disability? Nobody has given me a real answer on that question yet." (Exhibit __, Text Messages, p. 14.) Despite raising this concern about the propriety of Litman's continued listing, Goldberg signed at least 8 more POAs designating Litman as attorney of record over the next two years. A defendant who identifies a "fraud issue" with his own conduct and continues anyway has acted with knowledge and recklessness. 2. Goldberg's post-arbitration conduct demonstrates defiance. Of the 16 Powers of Attorney that Goldberg personally signed designating Litman as attorney of record, 12 were executed after the June 14, 2023 arbitration — the very proceeding in which the parties' relationship was formally adjudicated. (See Exhibit __, POA Signature Table.) Goldberg's most recent POA signature is dated January 17, 2025 — more than four and a half years after Litman's departure and nearly two years after arbitration. Each of these post-arbitration signatures was an affirmative, deliberate act of misappropriation. 3. The January 2025 switchover is conclusive evidence of consciousness of wrongdoing. Between January 14 and January 21, 2025, Goldberg replaced Litman's name with his own on patent front pages. (See Exhibit __, Attorney Switchover Analysis.) Patent No. 12,194,434 (issued January 14, 2025) is the last patent bearing Litman's name; Patent No. 12,201,650 (issued January 21, 2025) is the first bearing Goldberg's name. All 205 NGM patents issued after the switchover list Goldberg. (See Exhibit __, Post-Switchover Patent List.) This abrupt change proves two things simultaneously: (a) Goldberg had the ability to control whose name appeared on patent records at all times; and (b) Goldberg knew the prior use of Litman's name was unauthorized, or he would have had no reason to stop. 3-1. Goldberg's Affirmative Defenses Confirm Intentional Conduct. Goldberg's own affirmative defenses eliminate any suggestion that the misappropriation was inadvertent. His Tenth Affirmative Defense asserts that Litman consented to the use of his name. (Answer, Affirmative Defense No. 10.) But consent is a defense only to deliberate conduct. One does not seek permission for an accident. By pleading consent, Goldberg necessarily concedes that the use of Litman's name was intentional and purposeful — the very predicate for willfulness under § 51. His statute of limitations defense reinforces the point: it implicitly acknowledges a continuous course of conduct spanning June 2020 through January 2025, a period of four years and seven months. Inadvertent or isolated acts do not generate statute of limitations disputes over when a claim accrued; sustained, deliberate campaigns of name use do. Most telling is the documentary basis Goldberg identified in discovery to support his consent theory. In Discovery Response No. 1, Goldberg pointed to "Combination Agreements" and "communications requesting continuing association" as the source of his claimed authorization. This is a concession that Goldberg understood the use of Litman's name to be a negotiated commercial arrangement — one requiring affirmative authorization. Yet the undisputed record shows that Litman expressly revoked any such authorization by email on April 30, 2021. (See Exhibit __, Litman email dated 4/30/2021.) Goldberg's response was not to stop using Litman's name; it was to continue signing Powers of Attorney for nearly four more years. A defendant who knows he needs authorization, is told he no longer has it, and continues the conduct anyway has not acted inadvertently. He has acted willfully. 4. Punitive damages should be substantial. Given the duration of the misappropriation (June 2020 through January 2025 — four years and seven months), the scale of the commercial exploitation ($24.5 million in post-SOL receipts), the repeated defiance of Litman's express objection, and the continuation of the conduct after arbitration, punitive damages should be awarded in an amount sufficient to punish Goldberg and deter similar conduct. A multiplier of 1.5 to 3 times compensatory damages is within the range New York courts have awarded for sustained, willful misappropriation. F. Summary of Damages Calculations The following table presents three alternative damages scenarios. Methodologies A and B are alternatives to each other (not cumulative); the Additional Compensatory Items may be added to either. **Methodology A — Disgorgement of Goldberg's Profits** Item | Amount Post-SOL trust receipts (Jun 2020 - Jan 2025) | $24,509,250 Goldberg's retained share (80%) | $19,607,400 **Methodology B — Reasonable Royalty (alternative to A)** Royalty Rate Applied to $24,509,250 Post-SOL Receipts | Amount 10% (floor) | $2,450,925 20% (rate Goldberg actually paid before ceasing payment) | $4,901,850 33% (standard contingency benchmark) | $8,088,053 **Additional Compensatory Items (additive to A or B)** Item | Amount Trust receipt shortfall (Goldberg's workup gap) | $3,472,955 Outstanding receivables (Dec 2025, 100% Litman-attributed) | $1,070,986 Unpaid royalties (Jun - Dec 2025) | $246,628 Subtotal | $4,790,569 **Punitive Damages (1.5x to 3x compensatory base)** Compensatory Base | 1.5x Punitive | 3x Punitive On royalty floor ($2,450,925) | $3,676,388 | $7,352,775 On disgorgement ($19,607,400) | $29,411,100 | $58,822,200 **Total Damages Ranges** Scenario | Compensatory Basis | Punitive | Total Conservative | Royalty at 10% ($2,450,925) | 1.5x ($3,676,388) | **$6,127,313** Moderate | Royalty at 20% ($4,901,850) + additional items ($4,790,569) | 2x ($19,385,238) | **$29,077,657** Full Recovery | Disgorgement ($19,607,400) | 3x ($58,822,200) | **$78,429,600** Litman respectfully submits that the moderate estimate — approximately $29.1 million, comprising a 20% reasonable royalty ($4,901,850) plus additional compensatory items ($4,790,569) and a 2x punitive multiplier ($19,385,238) — best reflects the scope of Goldberg's misappropriation, the commercial value he extracted from Litman's name, and the deliberate, years-long course of conduct that produced it. The $16.2 million accounting gap between the trust ledger and Goldberg's Revenue Workup, the $3.47 million discrepancy between the trust receipt calculation and Goldberg's claimed overpayment, the $1.07 million in outstanding receivables attributed entirely to Litman, and the $246,628 in unpaid royalties since May 2025 all confirm that Goldberg has systematically understated the commercial value he extracted from Litman's name while withholding the compensation owed under the parties' own agreements. Litman reserves the right to supplement these calculations as further discovery, including depositions scheduled for completion by June 2, 2026, reveals additional evidence of Goldberg's profits and the full scope of the unauthorized use.