Executive Summary
When Goldberg caused Litman's name to appear on USPTO patent front pages, it was foreseeable that third-party patent databases would automatically republish this information. Each such republication -- on Google Patents, Espacenet, Justia Patents, Free Patents Online, Lens.org, and others -- constitutes an additional "publication" of Litman's name for commercial purposes. As new patents issued (especially the 13 post-7/21/2024 patents), new database entries were created, generating ongoing, foreseeable downstream publications attributable to Goldberg's original acts.
This theory is supplemental to (not a replacement for) the existing "deck of cards" theory. The original USPTO publications remain the primary acts; foreseeable republication adds a multiplier -- potentially transforming the damages calculation from approximately 1,000 discrete acts to tens of thousands of separately actionable publications.
1. The Theory
Foreseeable Republication Doctrine
Under New York tort law, a tortfeasor is liable for foreseeable consequences of their wrongful act. When Goldberg filed POAs and caused Litman's name to appear on patent front pages, the following consequences were entirely foreseeable:
- The USPTO would publish the patent electronically and in print
- Google Patents would automatically index and display the patent data, including "Richard C. Litman" as attorney
- Multiple other third-party databases would do the same
- Anyone searching for "Richard Litman" or for patents in the relevant technology areas would encounter these republications
- Each search result displaying different patents on different days constitutes a different experience -- a different publication
Distinction from Nussenzweig Defense
The existing case materials argue that each USPTO document is a "new government document, not a republication" to defeat the Nussenzweig v. diCorcia first-publication SOL defense. This is compatible with the foreseeable republication theory:
- Existing theory: Each USPTO filing (Filing Receipt, NOA, Office Action, issued patent) is an original publication -- a separate act by Goldberg
- Supplemental theory: Each third-party database indexing of those original publications is a foreseeable downstream publication -- an additional consequence attributable to Goldberg
The two theories are additive. The existing argument says "these are not republications of each other" (correct -- each USPTO document is distinct). The new argument says "the third-party indexing of each USPTO document is a foreseeable republication of that specific document" (also correct -- and creates additional publications).
2. Third-Party Patent Databases
Every patent issued by the USPTO is automatically ingested by multiple third-party databases. On March 27, 2026, we verified which platforms actually display "Richard C. Litman" by downloading evidence PDFs from each. The results are more nuanced than originally assumed -- some platforms display the attorney name prominently, some only in hosted PDFs, and some do not display it at all.
10 PDFs saved to evidence/republication/ -- 3 USPTO front pages, 1 Google Patents PDF, 3 Lens.org full-text pages, and 3 Justia pages documenting the absence of attorney field. This is court-ready evidence, not speculation.
Verified Platform Summary (Updated March 28, 2026)
| Platform | URL | Displays "Richard C. Litman"? | How? | Evidence? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| USPTO (official) | patft.uspto.gov | YES | Line 74 on patent front page | 3 PDFs in hand |
| The Lens (lens.org) | lens.org | YES -- STRONGEST | "Agents & Attorneys" filter on page 1; full Line 74 text on page 3 of each patent's full-text view: "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer; Richard C. Litman" | 3 PDFs in hand |
| Google Patents | patents.google.com | YES | Hosts the original USPTO PDF with Line 74 visible; front page with "Richard C. Litman" downloadable as PDF | 1 PDF in hand |
| USPTO Patent Center | patentcenter.uspto.gov | YES | Attorney of record in application data | Verified via API |
| Espacenet | worldwide.espacenet.com | TBD -- not yet verified | Bibliographic data section | Manual check needed |
| Free Patents Online | freepatentsonline.com | Firm name only | Shows "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer" but not individual attorney | Confirmed via search |
| SumoBrain | sumobrain.com | Firm name only | Similar to Free Patents Online | Confirmed via search |
| Justia Patents | patents.justia.com | NO | Justia does NOT display the attorney/agent field. Shows assignee, inventors, and examiner only. The attorney field is omitted from their display format. | 3 PDFs documenting absence |
| PatSnap | patsnap.com | Likely yes | Commercial platform -- requires subscription to verify | Not verified |
| Derwent Innovation | clarivate.com | Likely yes | Commercial platform -- requires subscription to verify | Not verified |
The Lens (lens.org) -- Strongest Third-Party Exhibit
The Lens is a global, free patent database operated by Cambia (cambia.org). Each Litman-attributed patent has its own permanent URL (e.g., lens.org/lens/patent/138-390-119-921-597). The evidence shows:
- Page 1: "Agents & Attorneys" appears as a navigation filter in the left sidebar, confirming The Lens treats attorney data as a searchable field.
- Page 3: The full Line 74 text appears: "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer; Richard C. Litman" -- identical to the USPTO front page.
- Anyone worldwide searching for patent attorney "Richard C. Litman" on The Lens will find this data.
- Three PDFs collected (US 11,881,807; US 11,980,937; US 12,043,608) confirming the pattern across multiple patents.
Google Patents -- PDF Hosting
Google Patents hosts the complete USPTO patent PDF, including the front page with Line 74. Unlike The Lens, Google Patents does not extract the attorney name into a separate searchable field, but the name is visible on the hosted PDF that any user can view and download. One PDF collected (US 11,980,937) confirming the hosted document displays "Richard C. Litman."
Justia -- Correction from Prior Analysis
The prior version of this analysis listed Justia as displaying the attorney field. This is incorrect. Three separate Justia patent pages were checked and saved as PDFs. Justia displays assignee, inventors, primary examiner, and application data, but does not display the attorney/agent field. Justia should be removed from any damages multiplier calculation but retained in the evidence set to demonstrate thorough verification.
3. Post-7/21/2024 Patents
13 Patents Issued After 7/21/2024 (SOL-Safe Period)
Each of these patents generated new third-party database entries within the strongest SOL period:
| # | Issue Date | Patent No. | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2024-07-23 | 12,043,608 | |
| 2 | 2024-07-23 | 12,043,609 | |
| 3 | 2024-07-30 | 12,049,459 | |
| 4 | 2024-08-06 | 12,054,460 | |
| 5 | 2024-08-06 | 12,054,464 | |
| 6 | 2024-08-13 | 12,062,780 | |
| 7 | 2024-08-20 | 12,065,424 | |
| 8 | 2024-08-27 | 12,071,437 | |
| 9 | 2024-10-08 | D1,046,141 | Design patent |
| 10 | 2024-10-15 | 12,114,620 | KISR assignee |
| 11 | 2024-10-15 | 12,116,333 | |
| 12 | 2024-12-03 | 12,157,086 | KNPC (Goldberg Line 74) |
| 13 | 2025-01-14 | 12,194,434 | Last in dataset |
Additional post-SOL patents discovered via IFW analysis: US 12,227,748 and US 12,303,254 (hidden attribution patents with PTOL-85B as late as April 16, 2025).
Multiplier Calculation
Post-7/21/2024 Patents Only
| Databases | x Patents | = Third-Party Publications |
|---|---|---|
| 10 databases | x 13 patents | 130 additional publications |
All 905 Litman Patents
| Databases | x Patents | = Third-Party Publications |
|---|---|---|
| 10 databases | x 905 patents | 9,050 additional publications |
4. "Different Search, Different Day"
Each search for Litman's name shows different results on different days, and each such search result is arguably a separate publication.
Why Results Differ Over Time
- New patents issue weekly -- USPTO issues patents every Tuesday. Each new Litman-attributed patent changes the search results.
- Database indexing occurs at different times -- Google Patents may index within hours; others may take days or weeks.
- Search algorithms evolve -- ranking changes mean different patents appear prominently on different dates.
- User context varies -- different searchers see different results based on location, search history, and platform.
Evidence Collection Status (Updated March 28, 2026)
- USPTO front pages -- COLLECTED. 3 PDFs showing Line 74 with "Richard C. Litman" (US 11,881,807; US 11,980,937; US 12,043,608).
- The Lens (lens.org) -- COLLECTED. 3 PDFs showing "Agents & Attorneys" filter and full Line 74 text. Strongest third-party exhibit.
- Google Patents -- COLLECTED. 1 PDF showing hosted USPTO document with Line 74 visible.
- Justia -- COLLECTED (negative result). 3 PDFs documenting that Justia does NOT display attorney field.
- Espacenet -- STILL NEEDED. Manual browser capture required.
- PATENTSCOPE (WIPO) -- STILL NEEDED. Manual browser capture required.
- Date-stamped captures -- Use browser screenshots with visible date/time, or screen recording to establish that searches on different dates yield different results.
5. Why Post-7/21/2024 Especially Valuable
Per the case theory, acts after 7/21/2024 are the strongest for SOL arguments. Third-party database republication of post-7/21/2024 patents has special value because:
- Each new patent creates a new database entry -- not a "republication" of an old entry, but a genuinely new index record.
- The databases are commercial enterprises -- Google, Clarivate (Derwent), PatSnap all monetize patent data. Litman's name is being used in their commercial operations.
- Ongoing indexing means ongoing publication -- unlike a one-time USPTO filing, database entries persist and are served to new users continuously.
- Search result prominence varies -- a patent that appears on page 1 of Google results one week may move to page 2 the next, replaced by a newer Litman patent. Each such change is a different publication experience.
6. Foreseeability Evidence
Goldberg Knew About Third-Party Databases
As a registered patent attorney, Goldberg would have known:
- Google Patents indexes all USPTO data -- this is industry common knowledge among patent practitioners.
- Patent databases are the primary way clients and the public discover patent attorneys -- prospective clients routinely search for attorney track records on these platforms.
- Placing Litman's name on patent front pages would propagate to all major databases -- the automatic indexing of USPTO data is a well-known feature of the patent ecosystem.
- This propagation would continue for the life of each patent (20+ years) -- the republication is not temporary; it is permanent and ongoing.
Website Evidence Confirms Foreseeability
Goldberg maintained Litman's profile on nathlaw.com through at least June 21, 2025 -- showing he understood the commercial value of Litman's online presence. If Goldberg was willing to keep Litman's name on the firm website to attract business, it is foreseeable that he understood the same name on patent databases would have the same commercial effect.
The nathlaw.com website listed Litman as "PATENT ATTORNEY" with no "Retired" designation through at least June 21, 2025. By September 5, 2025, Litman had been removed entirely -- demonstrating Goldberg's ability to control online references to Litman's name at will.
7. Relationship to "Deck of Cards" Theory
The foreseeable republication theory complements the existing deck of cards theory. Together, all four categories of name use produce a combined count of actionable publications:
| Theory | Primary Publications | Downstream Publications | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deck of Cards (Category 1) | 905 patents + 206 outgoing docs | -- | ~1,111 |
| Client-Facing (Category 2) | -- | 24,526+ Martha emails | ~24,526 |
| Trademark (Category 3) | 1,813 trademark emails | -- | ~1,813 |
| Foreseeable Republication (Category 4) | -- | 9,050+ database entries | ~9,050 |
| Combined | ~36,500+ |
This transforms the damages calculation from approximately 1,000 discrete acts to potentially tens of thousands of separately actionable publications under NY Civil Rights Law Section 51.
8. Limitations and Cautions
- Novel theory: No existing case law directly applying foreseeable republication to Section 51 patent attorney name-use was identified. This theory should be researched for case support before relying on it at trial.
- Dilution risk: The foreseeable republication theory should be presented as a "turning point" multiplier -- additive to the core patent evidence, not a substitute for it. Overemphasis on downstream publications risks diluting the impact of the direct USPTO evidence.
- Documentation burden: To assert this theory, screenshots must be captured from multiple databases on multiple dates showing Litman's name. This is labor-intensive but straightforward.
- Standing question: Whether Litman has standing to claim Section 51 damages for third-party database entries (where the database operator, not Goldberg, hosts the content) depends on the foreseeability argument. The databases automatically ingest USPTO data; Goldberg caused the USPTO data to exist.