Executive Summary
Beyond the 905 patents at the core of this case, Joshua B. Goldberg also exploited Richard Litman's name, reputation, and client relationships in an active trademark practice. Howard Kline — a non-attorney working under the NGM umbrella — handled trademark matters for Litman's clients, with Litman's name and professional identity used to attract and retain business. The Nicola Pizza engagement is the most fully documented example, revealing a pattern of name exploitation that extends well beyond patent prosecution.
91% of Howard Kline's emails were CC'd to Litman — creating a paper trail that shows Litman's name was inextricable from the trademark work performed under Goldberg's organizational control. Each client-facing communication referencing Litman constitutes a separate commercial use of his name under § 51.
1. The Nicola Pizza Story
Nicola Pizza is a beloved Delaware restaurant chain that became one of Litman's trademark clients through a direct personal referral. The engagement demonstrates every element of the name-exploitation pattern: a client attracted by Litman's reputation, work performed under Goldberg's organizational control, and Litman's name used commercially without his consent or compensation.
Cast of Characters
| Person | Role | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Richard Litman | Patent Attorney | Name and reputation attracted the client; provided strategic direction throughout |
| Howard Kline | Trademark Specialist (Non-Attorney) | Performed day-to-day trademark work; stated he "handles the trademark work for my clients" |
| Joshua B. Goldberg | Managing Partner, NGM | Organizational control over the firm; received Litman's client development reports |
| Nicholas Caggiano ("Nick") | Owner, Nicola Pizza | The client; engaged Litman's services based on personal referral |
| Anthony Poppiti | Outside Counsel / Referral Source | Delaware attorney who contacted Litman directly to initiate the engagement |
Chronological Email Chain
Poppiti Contacts Litman Directly
Anthony Poppiti, a Delaware attorney, reaches out to Litman personally — not to NGM, not to Goldberg, not to Kline. The referral is based entirely on Litman's professional reputation.
"Rich, I have a client who owns a well-known pizza restaurant in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware called Nicola Pizza. He has been in business for over 50 years. He has competitors who are using the Nicola name and he would like to protect his brand. Can you help?"
— Anthony Poppiti, email to Richard Litman, December 13, 2023
Litman Hands Off to Kline
The very next day, Litman routes the new client to Howard Kline for execution of the trademark work. This is the pattern: Litman's name attracts clients, but the actual work is performed by others under Goldberg's organizational umbrella.
Joint Call with Client
Litman, Kline, and Nicholas Caggiano hold a joint call to discuss the trademark portfolio. Litman's participation reinforces the client's belief that Litman is personally involved in his legal representation.
Trademark Portfolio Review
Kline conducts a comprehensive review of Nicola Pizza's trademark portfolio and competitive landscape. Throughout this period, Litman provides strategic direction, including specific guidance on filing strategy.
"Could he file an ITU [Intent-to-Use application] on the restaurant name?"
— Richard Litman, email regarding Nicola Pizza trademark strategy, February 2024
New ITU Application Filed
A new Intent-to-Use trademark application is filed for "Taste of the 1st State" (docket 6217.51T). This is an entirely new matter generated from the Nicola Pizza relationship — the relationship Litman's name attracted.
Litman Reports Growth to Goldberg
On the same day the new application is filed, Litman emails Goldberg to report on the expanding client relationship. This email is devastating — it proves Goldberg was directly informed of (and benefiting from) the commercial exploitation of Litman's name and reputation.
"The relationship is growing."
— Richard Litman, email to Joshua B. Goldberg, April 9, 2024
Goldberg received this email and took no action to ensure Litman was compensated or to clarify Litman's role. Instead, the firm continued to bill the client under Goldberg's organizational control while trading on Litman's name.
Cease & Desist Letter
Kline drafts a cease-and-desist letter to competitors using the "Nicola" name. The letter is sent on behalf of Nicola Pizza — a client whose engagement exists solely because of Litman's reputation and personal relationships.
Litman's Relationship Statement & Kline's Concerns
Two emails on this date reveal the dynamics at play:
"I introduced Nick to the firm and I want to make sure that the relationship continues to grow. Nicola Pizza is an important client to me."
— Richard Litman, email, April 18, 2024
"I share your concern. I want to do this right. Nick trusts you and by extension he trusts me. We cannot let him down."
— Howard Kline, email responding to Litman, April 18, 2024
Kline's response — "Nick trusts you and by extension he trusts me" — is a direct admission that Litman's name and reputation are the commercial engine driving this client relationship. The trust flows from Litman's identity to the firm's work product.
Auto-Reply Proves Continued Name Use
More than a year later, Litman's email auto-reply demonstrates that his name continued to be used in client-facing communications through the NGM infrastructure — well past the point where any legitimate basis for such use had expired.
"Thank you for your email. I am currently out of the office. For patent matters, please contact Joshua Goldberg at jgoldberg@nathlaw.com. For trademark matters, please contact Howard Kline at hkline@nathlaw.com."
— Richard Litman, auto-reply email, July 29, 2025
This auto-reply was sent from the @nathlaw.com domain — infrastructure controlled by Goldberg. The message directs Litman's contacts to Goldberg and Kline, converting Litman's professional relationships into firm revenue. Each auto-reply is a separate § 51 use.
Continued Auto-Replies
Additional auto-replies continue to be sent from Litman's NGM email address, further demonstrating the ongoing exploitation of his name and identity through firm-controlled infrastructure. Each triggered response is another commercial use.
2. Financial Records — Trust Ledger
The Nicola Pizza trust account records confirm that all financial activity was attributed to "RL" (Richard Litman) as the responsible attorney. This directly contradicts any defense that Litman was merely incidentally mentioned — the firm's own financial records identify him as the attorney of record generating this revenue.
| Docket | Matter Description | Attorney | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6217.00T | Nicola Pizza — General TM | RL | $1,500.00 |
| 6217.01T | NICOLA PIZZA (word mark) | RL | $1,250.00 |
| 6217.02T | NICOLA PIZZA (design mark) | RL | $1,250.00 |
| 6217.03T | THE WICH HOUSE | RL | $750.00 |
| 6217.04T | NICK'S HOUSE OF RIBS | RL | $750.00 |
| 6217.50T | Nicola Pizza C&D | RL | $2,000.00 |
| 6217.51T | TASTE OF THE 1ST STATE (ITU) | RL | $1,270.00 |
| 6217.52T | Nicola Pizza — Monitoring | RL | $750.00 |
| Total — All Dockets | $9,520.00 | ||
Every docket lists "RL" as the responsible attorney. This is not accidental — the firm's own accounting system attributes this revenue stream to Litman. Goldberg's firm collected $9,520 in trust deposits for work generated entirely by Litman's name and professional relationships, while Litman received no compensation.
3. Other Trademark Clients
Nicola Pizza is the most fully documented example, but the pattern of trademark name exploitation extends across multiple clients. Each represents an additional channel through which Litman's name was commercially exploited under Goldberg's organizational control.
Dakota AG (October 2024)
A prospective agricultural client contacted Litman seeking trademark assistance. The inquiry was directed to "The Litman Law office" — demonstrating that the market associated Litman's personal name with the firm's services.
"I'm reaching out to The Litman Law office regarding trademark registration for our agricultural products line."
— Dakota AG representative, October 2024
Park-n-Rail (July 2023)
A parking services company with trademark needs routed through Litman's professional network. The engagement followed the same pattern: client attracted by Litman's reputation, work delegated to Kline under Goldberg's organizational control.
Vegetable Growers / 3 FLAGS (July 2023)
Litman's own words reveal the depth of the client relationships being exploited:
"Vegetable Growers has been an active client early in my career."
— Richard Litman, email regarding Vegetable Growers / 3 FLAGS trademark matter, July 2023
This long-standing relationship — built over decades of Litman's personal practice — continued to generate revenue for Goldberg's firm through trademark work performed under the NGM umbrella.
Run For Something (February 2024)
A political organization with trademark needs, engaged through Litman's network. The engagement further demonstrates that Litman's name continued to be the primary driver of new trademark business well after the SOL cutoff date.
AI Enhancements / Haloo (June – August 2023)
A technology company with trademark needs in the AI space. This engagement produced one of Litman's most explicit statements about the organizational structure of the trademark practice:
"Howard Kline handles the trademark work for my clients."
— Richard Litman, email regarding AI Enhancements / Haloo, June–August 2023
Three words in this statement are legally devastating: "my clients." Litman understood these to be his clients — people who came to the firm because of him. Kline "handles" the work, but the client relationship belongs to Litman. The firm exploited that possessory relationship commercially, without Litman's consent or compensation.
4. Litman's "My Clients" Statements
Throughout the email record, Litman repeatedly refers to trademark clients as "my clients" — a consistent pattern that establishes his understanding of these relationships as personal, not institutional. Each statement reinforces the § 51 claim: Litman's name and identity were the commercial asset being exploited.
| Date | Context | Statement |
|---|---|---|
| Jun–Aug 2023 | AI Enhancements / Haloo | "Howard Kline handles the trademark work for my clients." |
| April 9, 2024 | Nicola Pizza — Report to Goldberg | "The relationship is growing." |
| April 18, 2024 | Nicola Pizza — Client management | "I introduced Nick to the firm and I want to make sure that the relationship continues to grow. Nicola Pizza is an important client to me." |
| July 2023 | Vegetable Growers / 3 FLAGS | "Vegetable Growers has been an active client early in my career." |
These are not isolated statements. They form a consistent pattern in which Litman understood the client relationships to be his — built on his name, his reputation, and his decades of practice. Goldberg's firm exploited that understanding to generate revenue while Litman received nothing.
5. Why This Matters for the Case
Extends Beyond Patents
The core case focuses on 905 issued patents listing Litman as attorney of record. The trademark evidence demonstrates that Goldberg's exploitation of Litman's name was not limited to patent prosecution — it pervaded the firm's entire practice. This breadth of use undercuts any defense that the name use was incidental, ministerial, or limited in scope.
Each Act Is Separate
Under the "deck of cards" theory adopted in this case, each client-facing communication bearing or trading on Litman's name constitutes a separate commercial use under § 51. With 2,678 Kline emails — 91% CC'ing Litman — the trademark practice alone generates thousands of additional actionable uses beyond the patent prosecution chain.
Organizational Control
The trademark evidence is particularly powerful because it demonstrates Goldberg's organizational control over the name exploitation:
- Kline operated under the NGM umbrella — infrastructure controlled by Goldberg
- The @nathlaw.com email domain (including auto-replies) was Goldberg's infrastructure
- Trust account deposits were processed through Goldberg's firm
- Goldberg received direct reports about client relationship growth (April 9, 2024 email)
- All dockets attributed to "RL" flowed through Goldberg's firm accounting
Witness Availability
| Witness | Role | Expected Testimony | Deposition Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Howard Kline | Trademark Specialist | Can testify to the structure of the trademark practice, Litman's role in client development, email CC patterns, and who controlled the work assignments and billing | High |
| Anthony Poppiti | Referring Attorney | Can testify that he contacted Litman personally — not the firm — based on Litman's professional reputation; establishes that the client relationship was attracted by Litman's name | High |
The trademark evidence transforms this case from a patent-only dispute into a comprehensive demonstration of systematic name exploitation. Goldberg did not merely allow Litman's name to remain on patent filings — he built an entire practice around Litman's identity, reputation, and client relationships, extracting commercial value at every level while Litman received nothing in return.