Executive Summary
The defense will cherry-pick text messages to argue that Litman knew about and implicitly consented to the use of his name on patents, the NGM website, and in client communications. This exhibit presents each "dangerous" text in its full context, paired with the documentary evidence that neutralizes it.
The texts actually strengthen Litman's case when read in full. They show: (1) Goldberg knew the name use was potentially fraudulent, (2) Litman never discussed or consented to POA filings, (3) Litman explicitly objected to name use when he discovered its scope, and (4) Goldberg controlled all aspects of the name use unilaterally.
Conclusion: The 51 pages of texts contain zero consent to POA signatures, zero consent to Line 74 patent listings, and zero discussion of the mechanism by which Litman's name appeared on 905 patents. What the defense calls "consent" was actually a disabled man trying to preserve his disability insurance status.
12
Counter-Evidence Points
0
POA Discussions in 51 Pages
Dangerous Text #1 — The "Senior Counsel" Exchange
Exhibit E, Page 14 — January 30, 2023
GOLDBERG:
"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"
LITMAN:
"There are laws which require reasonable accommodation of disabled persons. The definition of disability is broad in scope... The law firm's public promotion of my Senior Counsel status is consistent with me not being dead or disqualified to practice law, and shows that my relationship with the law firm has not been terminated, but it has had no effect on the disability benefits."
GOLDBERG:
"With that all being true, I am fine with you being considered as 'Senior Counsel'. But, I do think we need to also figure out what a Tails policy will look like..."
How Defense Will Spin This
"See? Mr. Litman knew we were promoting him and he wanted us to, as long as the checks kept clearing." They will put this on a projector and argue implied consent to all name use—patents, website, everything.
Why This Fails — 5 Counter-Evidence Points
1.
Context was disability insurance, not patents. The entire exchange is about whether Litman's MetLife disability benefits would be jeopardized by a "Senior Counsel" listing. Litman was explaining that being listed doesn't constitute fraud under disability law. He was protecting his benefits—not authorizing his name on 905 patent front pages.
Full thread: pp. 13-14, beginning with quarterly revenue reconciliation discussion
2.
"Senior Counsel" ≠ "Patent Attorney" on Line 74. The website listed Litman as "Senior Counsel." The 905 patents list him as the "Attorney, Agent, or Firm" on Line 74—a completely different representation. Discussing one does not constitute consent to the other. Litman never saw a patent front page bearing his name until the lawsuit.
Compare: nathlaw.com "Senior Counsel" vs. USPTO Line 74 "Richard C. Litman"
3.
"Senior Counsel" ≠ consent to sign POAs. Even if Litman approved the website title, that says nothing about authorizing Goldberg to personally sign 16 Power of Attorney forms (Reg. 44126) selecting Customer Number 37833. POAs are the mechanism that caused Litman's name on patents. POAs are never mentioned once in 51 pages of texts.
POA exhibits: 16 Goldberg-signed PTO/AIA/82A forms, none discussed in texts
4.
Goldberg's own words prove he knew it was problematic. He asked whether the listing was "fraud." He said "nobody has given me a real answer." This is consciousness of wrongdoing—Goldberg knew listing a disabled, non-practicing attorney as active was legally questionable, yet he continued for 2+ more years and expanded the POA filings.
Goldberg: "what would be considered legal vs. fraud?" (p.14, 1/30/2023)
5.
Goldberg controls the framing. Note who controls the conversation: Goldberg says "I am fine with you being considered as 'Senior Counsel.'" He is granting permission to Litman—not the other way around. This proves Goldberg controlled the name use. It was his decision, not Litman's consent.
BOP Eighth Defense: "NGM included Plaintiff's name... purely as a courtesy." (Feb. 26, 2026)
Bottom Line for Counsel
A disabled man explaining to his disability insurer that being listed as "Senior Counsel" is legal under disability law is not consent to have his name placed on 905 federal patent documents via Power of Attorney forms he never saw, never signed, and was never told about.
Dangerous Text #2 — The "Having It Both Ways" Pattern
Exhibit E, Multiple Pages — Pattern Across 2023-2025
LITMAN (p.21, 5/3/23):
"let me know if you would like me to reach out to my old friend Dr. Mohammed Kadi at KAU about the 36 new matters."
LITMAN (p.33, 10/4/24):
"I am willing to take the trip alone. The recent Dubai move to become IP central requires immediate action..."
LITMAN (p.34, 10/16/24):
"Let me know if you would like me to accompany you, help arrange, or do anything else you need."
LITMAN (p.41, 5/1/25):
"Let me know how you are doing while you are traveling and if I can provide any assistance. 24/7."
LITMAN (p.43, 6/1/25):
"it looks like you may be getting work now from KAU in Jeddah. This university is bigger than KSU. Mohamed Kadi is a friend."
How Defense Will Spin This
"Litman was actively involved in the business, helping secure clients, offering to travel, advising on strategy. He was effectively still working as a partner. He can't claim his name was being misused when he was volunteering to use it himself."
Why This Fails — 4 Counter-Evidence Points
1.
The Amendment required cooperation. The Combination Agreement Amendment entitled Litman to 20% of revenue from originated clients for 5 years post-termination. Litman had a direct financial interest—and arguably a contractual duty—to help grow those client relationships. Helping clients prosper is not the same as consenting to unauthorized POA signatures.
Amendment: "twenty percent (20%) of the Revenue... from billings for services rendered to Originated clients"
2.
Client development ≠ name on patent filings. Litman was offering to make introductions, advise on client relationships, and help with business development. None of this requires or authorizes placing his name on Line 74 of U.S. patents. A referral source helping grow accounts is not the same as a practicing attorney filing patent applications.
Zero texts discuss patent filings, POAs, filing receipts, or office actions
3.
Goldberg never told Litman about the POAs. In all 51 pages of texts about client strategy, revenue, and business development, Goldberg never once mentioned that he was personally signing Power of Attorney forms in Litman's name. If the name use was authorized, why hide the mechanism?
51 pages searched: 0 mentions of "power of attorney," "POA," "customer number," "37833," or "Line 74"
4.
Goldberg's own federal counsel admitted the name use was commercially motivated. The PI Opposition states: "because of the revenue share." This is not a consent defense—it's an admission that the name use was for Goldberg's financial benefit. Litman helping grow the business doesn't transform a commercial exploitation into authorized use.
EDNY Opp. (10/10/2025): "include Plaintiff... because of the revenue share"
Bottom Line for Counsel
A disabled patent attorney helping grow client relationships he is contractually entitled to profit from is not consent to have his name forged on federal patent documents. The defense is conflating business development (which benefits both parties) with authorization of name use (which only Goldberg controlled). The texts prove Litman's role was advisory—Goldberg controlled all filings unilaterally.
Dangerous Text #3 — The "631 Patents" Exchange
Exhibit E, Page 38 — December 23, 2024
GOLDBERG:
"KFU is winding up with 631 patents this year, we hit their goal of 600 for the year"
LITMAN:
"631 is incredible feat. The longer you wait to send all invoices for all work, the longer it will take to get paid."
How Defense Will Spin This
"Litman celebrated these 631 patents—all bearing his name. He knew about them and was proud. He can't now complain about his name appearing on patents he praised."
Why This Fails — 3 Counter-Evidence Points
1.
Litman was discussing revenue, not name use. "631 patents" means 631 revenue-generating matters for a firm he was entitled to 20% of. His response was about invoicing and getting paid—not about his name appearing on patent front pages. The word "name" does not appear in this exchange.
Litman's response focuses entirely on invoicing: "longer you wait to send all invoices... the longer it will take to get paid"
2.
Knowing patents were filed ≠ knowing his name was on them. Litman knew KFU was a major client. He originated the relationship. But knowing the volume of KFU's patent filings is different from knowing his name appeared on Line 74 of each one via a POA he never authorized. The mechanism was invisible to him.
USPTO: Line 74 determined by Customer Number 37833 on POA; Litman never received filing receipts or NOAs
3.
Goldberg's own admission proves Litman wasn't involved in the filings. NGM's federal sanctions brief states: "Only NGM attorneys have submitted Power of Attorney forms" and Litman's name "does not appear" in Filer/Filer Authorized By fields. Goldberg confirmed under oath that Litman had no role in the filing process.
NGM Fed. Sanctions Brief; RFA No. 6: ADMITTED firm employee received Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
Bottom Line for Counsel
Litman discussed patents as a revenue metric—how many were filed, how much was invoiced, how quickly they'd get paid. He had no reason to know his name was on the front page of each one. Goldberg kept the mechanism (POA → CN-37833 → Line 74) entirely to himself.
Texts That Destroy the Defense
Exhibit E, Page 14 — January 30, 2023
GOLDBERG:
"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"
Why This Destroys the Consent Defense
•
Goldberg himself questioned whether listing Litman as "active" could constitute fraud. This is consciousness of wrongdoing. He knew the representation was false—Litman was disabled and not practicing—and he did it anyway for 2+ more years, signing 16 POAs between this text and January 2025.
Exhibit E, Page 47 — June 13, 2025
LITMAN:
"other issues such as use of my name, etc and the perpetual royalty free license promised in the amendment."
Why This Destroys the Consent Defense
•
Litman explicitly raised "use of my name" as an unresolved issue. Goldberg did not respond to this—an adoptive admission under CPLR 4547. A reasonable person would deny unauthorized use if it were legitimate. Goldberg's silence is damning.
Exhibit E, Page 51 — July 18, 2025
LITMAN:
"My personal emails have been eliminated from litman@4patent.com and the Nath law account. Is that something you can correct?"
GOLDBERG:
"It should be. Let me find out from IT what happened"
LITMAN:
"Same with NathLaw.com. This whole thing is really affecting me."
Why This Destroys the Consent Defense
•
Goldberg controlled everything—Litman's email accounts, the firm website, the domain. Litman had to ask permission to access his own digital identity. This proves Goldberg unilaterally controlled all representations of Litman's name and professional identity. A person who can't even access his own email account did not "consent" to having his name on 905 patents.
Exhibit E, Page 50 — July 15, 2025
LITMAN:
"Josh, I feel very badly about having to do this, particularly for your wife, kids and mother. I would like to help you resolve this without legal trouble, but you control the accounting and money, and now the clients. Do you want to talk before more litigation?"
Why This Destroys the Consent Defense
•
Litman identifies three things Goldberg controls: "the accounting and money, and now the clients." Litman understood he had been stripped of all control. A person with no control over the firm's operations, clients, or money did not "authorize" the firm to use his name.
The Silence That Speaks Loudest
0
Mentions of "Power of Attorney" in 51 pages
0
Mentions of "Customer Number" or "37833"
0
Mentions of "Line 74" or patent front pages
0
Requests for Litman's authorization to file
What Goldberg Never Told Litman
Across 51 pages spanning December 2018 through July 2025, Goldberg texted Litman about health, family, travel, client strategy, financial reconciliation, disability insurance, and bar dues. He discussed KFU patents as a revenue metric. He asked about Litman's headaches and surgery. He recommended restaurants in Brooklyn.
But he never once mentioned:
NEVER
That he was personally signing Power of Attorney forms selecting Customer Number 37833
NEVER
That Litman's name was appearing on the front page of every patent as "Attorney, Agent, or Firm"
NEVER
That the USPTO was sending 2,697 notifications about Litman to NGM
NEVER
That he had listed Litman as "Of Counsel" on the malpractice insurance application (7/6/2021)
NEVER
That he was using Litman's name in client-facing correspondence and filings
NEVER
That he needed Litman's written consent under NY Civil Rights Law § 50
If the name use was authorized, why was its mechanism a secret?
Timeline: From "Fraud" Concern to Switchover
1/30/2023
Goldberg asks if listing Litman is "fraud" — acknowledges the problem, continues anyway
6/14/2023
Arbitration decision — locks termination date at 6/15/2020. Goldberg's own position.
10/24/2023
Goldberg signs POA for App 18/383,448 — post-arbitration, after the "fraud" text
12/21/2023
"Bombshell" day — Goldberg signs both POA and KFU assignment cover sheet for App 18/392,663
12/23/2024
"631 patents" — discussed as revenue; name use mechanism not mentioned
1/14/2025
Last patent with Litman on Line 74 (12,194,434). Goldberg quietly switches to his own name.
1/17/2025
Most recent Goldberg-signed POA using CN-37833 — even as he's switching the name
1/21/2025
First patent with Goldberg on Line 74 (12,201,650). 205 NGM patents follow with Goldberg's name.
6/13/2025
Litman raises "use of my name" — Goldberg does not respond
7/18/2025
Litman's email/website access eliminated — Goldberg controls Litman's digital identity
The Definitive Counter-Evidence
5 Documents That Make the Text Messages Irrelevant
Even if the defense convinces the court that the texts show some awareness of name use on the website, these five documents independently establish that the patent name use was unauthorized:
Doc 1
Combination Agreement + Amendment: Zero provisions on name use, consent, goodwill, or POA authorization. Every word has been read. The agreement Goldberg relies on simply does not contain what he claims it does.
Doc 2
Goldberg's BOP Response (8th Defense): "NGM included Plaintiff's name on patents and on its website purely as a courtesy." Not pursuant to consent. Not pursuant to agreement. A courtesy—unilateral, discretionary, and revocable.
Doc 3
Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821): Goldberg's own recorded USPTO document states Litman owns his name. Goldberg cannot simultaneously claim Litman consented and file a document acknowledging Litman's ownership.
Doc 4
Arbitration Award (6/14/2023): The arbitrator accepted Goldberg's position that the agreement terminated 6/15/2020. By judicial estoppel, Goldberg cannot now claim the same agreement authorizes post-2020 name use.
Doc 5
The Switchover (Jan 14-21, 2025): Goldberg quietly replaced Litman's name with his own on patent front pages. 205 NGM patents after Jan 21 list Goldberg. If the name use was consensual, why secretly stop? This is consciousness of wrongdoing.