POINT I

GOLDBERG IS LIABLE UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS LAW § 51 BECAUSE HE USED LITMAN'S NAME WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT AND HAS ADMITTED THE USE

New York Civil Rights Law § 51 provides a cause of action where a person's name is used "for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade" without "written consent." N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 51. The statute imposes strict liability once three elements are established: (1) use of the plaintiff's name, (2) for purposes of advertising or trade, and (3) without written consent. See Messenger ex rel. Messenger v. Gruner + Jahr Printing & Publ., 94 N.Y.2d 436, 441 (2000). As demonstrated below, Goldberg has already admitted element (1), and discovery has conclusively established element (3). Element (2) is addressed in Point II.


A. Goldberg Admits He Used Litman's Name After June 15, 2020

There is no factual dispute on the threshold element of use. Goldberg's verified Answer states:

"Defendant admits only that Plaintiff's name appeared on the front page of patents issued to Plaintiff's originated clients after June 15, 2020, and that Plaintiff's name and biography appeared on NGM's website after June 15, 2020."

(Answer ¶ 32, Exhibit __.) Goldberg repeats this admission verbatim in his response to Count V. (Answer ¶ 72, Exhibit __.)

These admissions establish that Litman's name appeared in two distinct commercial channels after the statute-of-limitations cutoff: (1) on the front pages of United States patents, and (2) on the firm's public website, nathlaw.com.

Goldberg further admits that Litman "became physically disabled" in June 2020 (Answer ¶ 39, Exhibit __) and that Goldberg was co-managing partner of NGM throughout the relevant period (Answer ¶ 8, Exhibit __). Litman was not practicing law. His name was being used by others.


B. Goldberg Caused the Use — His Denial Is Contradicted by His Own Signatures

Although Goldberg denies that he "caused" Litman's name to appear on patents (Answer ¶ 33, Exhibit __), the documentary record refutes that denial beyond any genuine dispute. Indeed, NGM's own federal sanctions brief concedes the point: "Only NGM attorneys have submitted Power of Attorney forms authorizing them to act on behalf of the clients." (Exhibit __, NGM Federal Sanctions Brief, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK.) NGM further admits that Litman's name "does not appear" in the Filer or Filer Authorized By fields on any USPTO submission — proving that NGM and Goldberg controlled all filings. (Id.)

Moreover, Goldberg has authenticated under oath all six exemplar patents' POA transmittals, application transmittals, and IDS forms — each bearing his signature /Joshua B. Goldberg/ Reg. 44126, designating CN-37833 — as part of Exhibit A to his federal declaration. (Exhibit __, Goldberg Federal Declaration, Exhibit A, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK, filed 10/10/2025.) This authentication eliminates any future objection to the genuineness of these documents.

Most critically, Goldberg's own counsel has now admitted the name use was deliberate and systematic. In Goldberg's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, filed October 10, 2025 in the federal action, Connell Foley stated on behalf of NGM: "The parties' practice was also to include Plaintiff along with NGM as counsel for any matters for originated clients, including within filings and client communications because of the revenue share." (Exhibit __, Defendant's Opposition to Preliminary Injunction, EDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK, filed Oct. 10, 2025.) This is a judicial admission by counsel that the name use was not incidental, accidental, or ministerial — it was a deliberate practice, applied systematically to "filings and client communications," and motivated by revenue. Goldberg's counsel further admitted: "NGM agreed with Plaintiff that he would continue to be listed as a Senior Counsel at the firm because of the parties' agreement to share revenue from originated clients." (Id.) And: "Plaintiff represented it was in both parties' financial interest to do so." (Id.) These statements, made through counsel in a federal proceeding, are judicial admissions that cannot be withdrawn. They establish beyond any dispute that Goldberg caused Litman's name to appear on filings and communications as a deliberate, commercially motivated practice.

Goldberg personally signed sixteen of twenty-one Powers of Attorney filed with the USPTO after June 15, 2020, each under his registration number (Reg. 44126) and each designating Customer Number CN-37833 — the correspondence address that caused Litman's name to appear as attorney of record on issued patents. (Exhibit __, POA compilation with OCR verification.) Twelve of those sixteen signatures post-date the June 14, 2023 arbitration decision. (Exhibit __.) The most recent POA bears the date January 17, 2025. (Id.)

On December 21, 2023, Goldberg signed both the Power of Attorney and the assignment cover sheet for Application No. 18/392,663 (Patent 11,980,937) on the same day — executing every document in the prosecution chain that would cause Litman's name to appear on the resulting patent. (Exhibit __.)

Goldberg's own correspondence confirms his awareness and control:

- On January 17, 2023, Goldberg wrote: "Since we are the attorneys of record... Either a withdrawal of our Power of Attorney, or some other document transferring rights back to the inventor, needs to be filed..." (Exhibit __.) This establishes that Goldberg understood the POA mechanism and knew it could be withdrawn.

- On June 19, 2023 — five days after the arbitration decision — Goldberg wrote: "yes, it is fine to send the POA to the client after the application is filed..." (Exhibit __.) He continued authorizing new POAs even after the arbitration.

- On September 30, 2024, Goldberg referred to Litman as "the previous attorney, apparently still the attorney of record according to the USPTO." (Exhibit __.) By his own words, Goldberg knew Litman's name remained on patent records and took no action to remove it.

That Goldberg could have stopped the use at any time is proved by what happened next. Between January 14 and January 21, 2025, Litman's name was replaced by Goldberg's on patent front pages (Line 74 of the USPTO patent grant). Patent 12,194,434 (issued January 14, 2025) is the last patent listing Litman; Patent 12,201,650 (issued January 21, 2025) is the first listing Goldberg. (Exhibit __.) All 205 NGM patents granted after the switchover list Goldberg, not Litman. (Exhibit __, POST_20250114_NGM_PATENTS.csv.) The switchover proves that Goldberg had the ability to control whose name appeared on patents at all times — and chose to use Litman's name for nearly five years after Litman became disabled.


C. No Written Consent Exists — Goldberg Has Produced None

Section 50 of the Civil Rights Law makes it a misdemeanor to use a person's name for advertising or trade purposes "without having first obtained the written consent of such person." N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50. The written consent requirement is not a formality; it is the statute's central protective mechanism. See Lerman v. Flynt Distributing Co., 745 F.2d 123, 129 (2d Cir. 1984).

In discovery, Litman demanded: "the agreement, license, or consent form designated by Defendant as the basis for his authority to use Plaintiff's name on United States Patents issued after June 15, 2020." (Discovery Request No. 1, Exhibit __.) Goldberg produced no written consent document. His response pointed only to "the Combination Agreements and Plaintiff's communications to Defendant requesting his continuing association with the NGM." (Exhibit __.)

Neither source constitutes written consent under § 50. Moreover, Goldberg's own subsequent filings have destroyed any argument that the Combination Agreements authorized the name use. In his BOP Response (February 26, 2026), Goldberg's Eighth Affirmative Defense states that "NGM included Plaintiff's name on patents and on its website purely as a courtesy." (Exhibit __, BOP Response, Eighth Affirmative Defense.) This admission is fatal to the consent defense: if the name inclusion was "purely a courtesy," then it was not authorized by the Combination Agreements — it was a discretionary act by Goldberg. One cannot simultaneously claim a contractual right to use someone's name and characterize that same use as "purely a courtesy." The "courtesy" characterization concedes that no contractual obligation or authorization compelled the use, which means the Combination Agreements provide no defense.

This self-contradiction is compounded by Goldberg's RFA responses. In his response to RFA No. 7 (February 17, 2026), Goldberg claims the Combination Agreements ARE written consent for the Line 74 listings. (Exhibit __, RFA Responses.) Yet in his BOP Response filed nine days later, he calls the same use "purely a courtesy." These two positions are irreconcilable: either the agreements authorized the use (making it contractual, not a courtesy) or the use was a courtesy (meaning the agreements did not compel it). Both cannot be true.

Goldberg's RFA responses contain additional admissions that undermine his defense:

- RFA No. 3: Goldberg states he is "unable to admit or deny" whether he personally signed the POAs — while admitting his e-signature appears on them. (Exhibit __, RFA Responses.) A party's claimed inability to confirm his own signature on government documents is not a denial. It is evasion that should be treated as an admission.

- RFA No. 14: Goldberg similarly claims inability to admit or deny whether he personally signed POAs listing Litman, while conceding the signatures exist. (Exhibit __, RFA Responses.)

Further, Goldberg's consent defense relies in part on text messages in which Litman discussed his "Senior Counsel" status on the NGM website. But those text messages addressed website listings — not patent Line 74 designations. These are entirely different categories of name use. No text message in the 51-page record addresses the POA filings or Line 74 listings. Goldberg conflates two distinct forms of name use to fabricate consent for the one that actually matters.

1. The Combination Agreement does not convey personal name rights. The Combination Agreement transferred the service mark "LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD." — a corporate trade name — not Richard Litman's personal name. Litman himself drew this distinction in writing. On April 30, 2021, he emailed Goldberg: "The assignment of the LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. mark does not include the right to use my name separate and apart from the mark. At this point, use of my name is not an issue because I am on the employee roster. But, if well enough, part-time counsel status with a non-IP firm during the 5 year period is possible. We need to address this when we resolve everything." (Exhibit __, Message ID C2051472_ND0000270242.msg, April 30, 2021, 10:45 AM.) This email proves three things: (a) Litman distinguished his personal name from the service mark, (b) Litman did not consent to independent use of his personal name, and (c) the parties understood the issue was unresolved.

Litman explicitly raised the name use issue again in text messages on June 13-16, 2025: "other issues such as use of my name, etc and the perpetual royalty free license promised in the amendment." (Exhibit __, Text Messages, p. 47.) Goldberg did not respond to this point. Additionally, the arbitrator's characterization of the 20% payments as a "royalty" — "a payment made in exchange for a privilege, in this case the privilege of servicing the lucrative client base brought by Litman to NGM" — confirms that the client relationships were Litman's property. 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" (emphasis added) — explicitly tying Litman's reputation to the revenue stream. If Goldberg was required to pay royalties for the privilege of servicing clients attracted by Litman's reputation, he certainly had no right to use Litman's name on the patents generated from that work without separate written consent.

A complete reading of both the Combination Agreement (March 29, 2017) and the Amendment to Agreement (May 7, 2017) confirms this conclusion. Neither document contains any provision -- express or implied -- authorizing NGM or Goldberg to use Litman's personal name as attorney of record on patent filings, USPTO correspondence, or any other public-facing document. The word "consent" does not appear in either agreement. The word "goodwill" does not appear. "Power of Attorney" is not mentioned. What was transferred is specific and limited: (a) the stock of Litman Law Offices, Ltd. -- a corporate entity, not a personal name (Amendment Para. 2); (b) domain names including LitmanLaw.com (Amendment Para. 3(b)); (c) telephone numbers (Amendment Para. 3(a)); and (d) USPTO Customer Numbers 24396 and 37833 (Amendment Para. 3(e)). None of these transfers constitutes consent to use Litman's personal name in a commercial context under Civil Rights Law Section 51. A customer number is an administrative routing mechanism. A corporate stock transfer is not a personal name license. Goldberg's reliance on "the Combination Agreements" in Discovery Response No. 1 fails because neither agreement says what he needs it to say. (See Exhibit __, Combination Agreement; Exhibit __, Amendment to Agreement.)

2. "Communications requesting continuing association" are not written consent. Even if such communications existed (and Goldberg has not identified any specific document), a request to remain associated with a firm is not a written authorization to place one's name on patents prosecuted and controlled by someone else. Section 50 requires consent to the specific use. See Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia, 9 N.Y.3d 184, 188 (2007).

3. Goldberg's RFA responses confirm the commercial nature of the name use while failing to establish consent. In his response to RFA No. 2, Goldberg admits that Litman "is an attorney concerned with the patent" whose name appears on Line 74 — while semantically denying the "Patent Attorney" label. (Exhibit __, RFA Responses, Feb. 17, 2026.) More significantly, Goldberg states that the only basis for Litman's name appearing on Line 74 was that Litman was "the attorney who originated the client for the Firm and who was, pursuant to his agreements with the Firm, entitled to a percentage of the Firm's attorney's fees received for the patent work completed for an originated client." (Id.) This is a binding admission that the name use was commercial — tied directly to fee generation. In his response to RFA No. 4, Goldberg admits "the Firm collected legal fees for the professional services rendered for the patent" and that Litman "received a percentage of the legal fees collected." (Id.) In his response to RFA No. 5, Goldberg admits Customer Number 37833 was associated with the patent. (Id.) In his response to RFA No. 6, Goldberg admits a firm employee received the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt. (Id.) None of these responses identifies any written consent document.

4. Goldberg's use of Litman's name extended beyond patents and the website. On July 6, 2021, Goldberg personally signed an application to Scottsdale Insurance Company for professional liability coverage (Policy No. FJS0001424, period 7/8/2021-7/8/2022, premium $38,260), listing Litman as "OC" (Of Counsel) on the Schedule of Attorneys. (See Exhibit __, Professional Liability Policy.) This is yet another commercial use of Litman's name -- Goldberg represented to a regulated insurer that Litman was associated with the firm, a representation that affected the premium calculation. The policy period falls entirely after the June 15, 2020 termination date that Goldberg himself argued in arbitration.


D. Goldberg's Own Recorded Document Destroys His Consent Defense

Goldberg's Affirmative Defense No. 10 claims that Litman consented to the use of his name. (Answer, Tenth Affirmative Defense, Exhibit __.) Yet Goldberg himself recorded a Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment with the USPTO (Reel 007281, Frame 0821) that contains the following clause: "Assignor owns his name, signature, voice, image, photograph or likeness." (Exhibit __.) Goldberg denies this paragraph in his Answer (¶ 38, Exhibit __), but the document is a matter of public record at the USPTO Assignment Center.

If the Assignor (Litman) "owns his name," then Goldberg needed Litman's consent to use it. He has produced no such consent. His Tenth Affirmative Defense is contradicted by his own recorded instrument.


D-1. Judicial Estoppel — Goldberg's Arbitration Position Contradicts His Consent Defense

Goldberg's consent defense fails for an independent reason: he is judicially estopped from asserting it. In the McCammon Group arbitration (Case No. 2022001552), Goldberg took the sworn position that the Combination Agreement terminated as of June 15, 2020. He now invokes that same agreement as the source of consent for name use after June 15, 2020. He cannot have it both ways.

New York applies judicial estoppel where "(1) the party took a clearly inconsistent position in a prior proceeding, (2) that position was accepted by the tribunal, and (3) the party would derive an unfair advantage if permitted to assert the inconsistent position." Becerril v. City of New York, 157 A.D.3d 553, 554 (1st Dep't 2018); see also Ayers v. Bloomberg, L.P., 84 A.D.3d 568, 569 (1st Dep't 2011). All three elements are satisfied here.

**First element: clearly inconsistent positions.** In his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (filed January 18/20, 2023), Goldberg argued that the September 17, 2020 email exchange between Litman and Goldberg constituted a binding agreement to terminate the Combination Agreement as of June 15, 2020. Goldberg's own email of that date stated: "As for how we treat the disability, I agree it would be cleanest to treat it like death, thereby instituting the five-year period starting 6/15/2020, while maintaining your Senior Counsel status. . . Clearly the specifics/documentation need to be worked out but this framework seems okay to me." (Exhibit __, Goldberg September 17, 2020 email, quoted in Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.) In his Post-Arbitration Brief (May 24, 2023, 53 pages), Goldberg pressed the same position: "Mr. Litman could not perform the duties of his employment and the Parties agreed that they were left with no choice but to terminate Mr. Litman's employment and the Combination Agreement." (Exhibit __, Post-Arbitration Brief at __.) Goldberg further argued: "Mr. Litman admitted that he could not perform his employment obligations under the Combination Agreement, and instead requested that Nath & Associates terminate his employee wages as of June 15, 2020." (Id. at __.)

Yet in his Answer in this action (Doc #65, filed January 20, 2026), Goldberg's Tenth Affirmative Defense asserts that Litman consented to the use of his name. (Exhibit __.) When asked in discovery to identify the basis for that consent, Goldberg pointed to "the Combination Agreements." (Discovery Response No. 1, Exhibit __.)

The inconsistency is fatal. If the Combination Agreement terminated on June 15, 2020 — as Goldberg swore under oath — then it cannot authorize anything after that date. A terminated contract confers no continuing rights. Goldberg argued termination when it served his financial interests in arbitration and now argues continuing authorization when it serves his defense in this action. That is the textbook case for judicial estoppel.

**Second element: acceptance by the tribunal.** The arbitrator issued a final ruling on June 14, 2023. Goldberg's termination argument was accepted to the extent the arbitrator adjudicated the parties' rights under the Combination Agreement and rendered a binding award. The prior proceeding concluded on the merits.

Indeed, the arbitrator's findings adopted Goldberg's position nearly verbatim. The arbitrator found: "Litman's status as Senior Counsel with NGM ceased by agreement of the parties on June 15, 2020." (Arbitration Award, June 14, 2023, Hon. Thomas D. Horne (Ret.), Case No. 2022001552, Exhibit __.) The arbitrator further found: "I find that the parties modified the terms of the Combination Agreement and Amendment to the Agreement so as to provide that the five-year period during which Litman would continue to receive payments for clients brought into the practice commenced on June 15, 2020." (Id.) These findings satisfy the second element of judicial estoppel: the tribunal accepted Goldberg's position that the agreement terminated — and that Litman's status at the firm ceased — as of June 15, 2020. Notably, the parties agreed to treat Litman "as if he had died" on that date. Using a deceased person's name on new patent filings and a law firm website without consent would be an obvious violation of § 51. That Litman was merely disabled rather than dead does not improve Goldberg's position — it worsens it, because a living person can object, and Litman did.

**Third element: unfair advantage.** Permitting Goldberg to invoke a terminated agreement as a source of post-termination consent would give him the benefit of termination (no further obligations to Litman) while simultaneously claiming the benefit of continuation (authority to use Litman's name). This is precisely the windfall judicial estoppel exists to prevent.

The estoppel is further reinforced by the arbitrator's own finding regarding Goldberg's contractual status. In the Full Arbitration Award (NYSCEF Doc 34), the arbitrator explicitly found: "Goldberg is not a party to the contracts." (Exhibit __, Arbitration Award, NYSCEF Doc 34.) This finding is devastating to the consent defense. If Goldberg is not a party to the Combination Agreements, he cannot derive consent from them. The Combination Agreements cannot be Goldberg's consent defense because, by the arbitrator's binding determination, he has no contractual relationship with Litman through those agreements. Goldberg is thus trapped: the only contracts he has identified as his basis for consent (Discovery Response No. 1) are contracts to which the arbitrator found he is not a party. A non-party to a contract cannot invoke that contract as authorization for his conduct.

This finding also reinforces the personal liability analysis. If Goldberg acted outside any contractual framework — because he was not a party to the contracts — then his use of Litman's name was purely a personal tortious act, not conduct shielded by any contractual arrangement.

The estoppel is further reinforced by Litman's own sworn testimony. In his Declaration dated February 2, 2023, filed in the same arbitration, Litman stated: "Goldberg, Meyer, and I never reached any agreement on the 'specifics' that were part of the 'framework' or the 'documentation' of the deal." (Declaration ¶ 5, Exhibit __.) He further stated: "We never resolved those issues and never reached an agreement on a 'termination date' for the Agreement. Plus, we never drafted any document to memorialize any amendment." (Declaration ¶ 7, Exhibit __.)

This testimony closes every escape route. Under Goldberg's own position, the agreement terminated — and a terminated agreement cannot consent. Under Litman's position, the specifics were never finalized — and an incomplete framework cannot consent either. Under either version, no written document was ever executed granting Goldberg authority to use Litman's personal name on patents prosecuted after June 15, 2020.

Goldberg chose his position when he swore to it in arbitration. He is bound by it now.


E. Goldberg's Own Staff Confirmed Litman Was Not Involved

On May 21, 2021, Tanya Harkins — a member of Goldberg's staff — wrote in an email on which Goldberg was copied: "this is not Litman. I would have never worked for him and he doesn't work here anymore." (Exhibit __.) This party admission confirms that by May 2021, Litman had no involvement in the firm's patent work, yet his name continued to appear on patents for nearly four more years.

Goldberg's own text messages further confirm his awareness. 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." He continued: "I.e., can you be an ACTIVE Senior Counsel while on disability?" and "Nobody has given me a real answer on that question yet." (Exhibit __, Text Messages, p. 14.) Despite raising this concern about the propriety of listing Litman as active, Goldberg continued signing Powers of Attorney designating Litman as attorney of record for two more years. Furthermore, a review of all 51 pages of text messages between Goldberg and Litman reveals that Goldberg NEVER discussed the 16 POA signatures with Litman — not once. (Exhibit __, Text Messages.) The absence of any text communication about the POAs, combined with Goldberg's express concern about the "fraud" implications of Litman's continued listing, confirms that the name use was unilateral.


E-1. Goldberg's Own Affirmative Defenses Contain Embedded Admissions

Each of Goldberg's affirmative defenses, properly analyzed, concedes one or more elements of the Section 51 claim. A defense that presupposes the conduct it purports to excuse is not a defense — it is an admission.

1. Statute of Limitations (First and Second Affirmative Defenses). Goldberg asserts that Litman's claims are time-barred. But a statute-of-limitations defense necessarily concedes that the underlying conduct occurred and that it began at an identifiable point in time. One cannot argue "you sued too late" without first admitting "it happened." Read together with Goldberg's admission that Litman's name appeared on patents and the firm website after June 15, 2020 (Answer ¶ 32), the First and Second Defenses confirm all three predicates: the use occurred, it was continuous, and it began within the relevant period.

2. First Publication Rule (Third Affirmative Defense). Goldberg invokes the single publication rule of Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia, 9 N.Y.3d 184 (2007), arguing that Litman's claims should be consolidated into a single cause of action. This defense is intelligible only if multiple publications exist — otherwise there would be nothing to consolidate. Goldberg is therefore conceding that his use of Litman's name was not a one-time event but a recurring course of conduct. The defense fails on the merits in any event: each of the 905 patents is a separately issued United States government document, bearing its own patent number, issue date, and content. These are 905 independent works, not one work published 905 times. And each of the 206 outgoing prosecution documents identified in the USPTO file wrappers constitutes a distinct official record.

3. Consent (Tenth Affirmative Defense). By asserting that Litman impliedly or expressly consented to the use, Goldberg admits three things: (a) the use was intentional, not incidental or accidental; (b) the use was of a character that required authorization; and (c) Goldberg understood that consent was a prerequisite. If the use were trivial or non-commercial, the consent defense would be irrelevant. Yet when Litman demanded production of "the agreement, license, or consent form" authorizing the use (Discovery Request No. 1), Goldberg produced no written consent document. (Exhibit __.) The Tenth Defense thus admits the need for consent while conceding the absence of it.

4. Waiver and Laches (Fifth Affirmative Defense). Goldberg asserts that Litman's claims are barred by waiver, laches, and unclean hands. Laches requires that the defendant suffered prejudice from the plaintiff's unreasonable delay in asserting a known right. By invoking laches, Goldberg implicitly concedes that the use was wrongful (otherwise there would be no "right" to assert), that the use was known to both parties, and that Goldberg himself expected objection. A defendant who believed his conduct was lawful would not argue that the plaintiff waited too long to complain about it. Moreover, Litman was physically disabled beginning June 2020, filed for arbitration, made at least five documented attempts to notify clients, and explicitly objected to the name use — negating any claim of delay or acquiescence.


F. Summary — All Elements Are Established as a Matter of Law

Element                  | Status              | Source
Use of Litman's name     | Admitted            | Answer ¶¶ 32, 72
Goldberg caused the use  | Proved              | 16 POA signatures (Reg. 44126); switchover proving control
Without written consent  | No document produced | Discovery Response No. 1
Consent defense          | Destroyed           | Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821); April 30, 2021 email; Harkins admission; Combination Agreement/Amendment analysis (zero name-use provisions); RFA responses (name use tied to fees, not consent); BOP "purely a courtesy" admission (destroys contractual authorization); Professional Liability Policy (additional unauthorized use); Exhibit A authentication (eliminates authenticity objections)
Judicial estoppel        | Consent barred      | Arbitration Case No. 2022001552; Goldberg's sworn termination position contradicts consent defense; Arbitrator found "Goldberg is not a party to the contracts" (NYSCEF Doc 34)
Embedded admissions      | Self-defeating      | Affirmative Defenses ##1, 2, 3, 5, 10

Goldberg admitted the use, signed the documents that caused it, produced no written consent, recorded an instrument confirming Litman owns his own name, and is judicially estopped from invoking the Combination Agreement as a source of consent because he swore under oath that it terminated. His own counsel admitted in federal court that the name use was a deliberate "practice" applied to "filings and client communications because of the revenue share" — a judicial admission that cannot be withdrawn. The arbitrator independently found that "Goldberg is not a party to the contracts," meaning he cannot derive consent from the Combination Agreements even if they had not terminated. A complete review of both the Combination Agreement and the Amendment reveals zero provisions authorizing personal name use on patents or USPTO filings. Goldberg extended the unauthorized use to a professional liability insurance application, listing Litman as "Of Counsel" to Scottsdale Insurance Company over a year after the June 15, 2020 termination date. His own RFA responses admit the name use was tied to fee generation — a commercial purpose requiring consent he never obtained. His BOP response characterizes the same use as "purely a courtesy" — destroying his own claim that the Combination Agreements authorized it. NGM's federal sanctions brief concedes that "only NGM attorneys" submitted POA forms and that Litman's name does not appear in the filer fields — proving Goldberg controlled every filing. His authentication under oath of the exemplar POA transmittals eliminates any future challenge to the documents that prove causation. His own affirmative defenses compound the problem: each one presupposes the very conduct Litman alleges. On these undisputed facts, Goldberg is liable under Civil Rights Law Section 51.