The Two Paths to Recovery
Three-tier damages framework: Conservative ($6.1M), Moderate ($29.1M), Aggressive ($78.4M). $32.4M total billed (2017-2025). $8.9M AR outstanding. $10.5M total pipeline (AR + WIP). $2.1M Litman 20% future entitlement. 95 JBG-directed trust transactions. 631 of 1,107 clients; 7,127 of 14,103 case files. 453 open RL matters with $1.29M WIP.
Per-Patent Linkage
If specific revenue can be traced to each of the 905 patents bearing Litman's name, damages equal the sum of per-patent fees multiplied by the applicable royalty rate. This requires forensic accounting to link client payments to individual patent matters.
= Linked revenue × royalty rate
Requires discovery of per-patent billing
Entire Relationship Revenue
If per-patent revenue cannot be linked, then all money received from the client is the damages base. This is potentially the larger recovery: the total collected fees across all client relationships where Litman's name was used.
Post-SOL Receipts: $24,509,250
$16.2M Accounting Gap (trust vs. workup)
× royalty / disgorgement rate
Revenue Breakdown by Year
Year-over-year financial data from NGM showing funds received, collected fees, amounts owed to Litman, and actual payments made.
| Year | Total Funds Received | Collected Fees | 20% Owed | Paid | Shortfall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 (from 6/15) | $2,325,950 | $1,653,523 | $330,705 | $255,000 | $75,705 |
| 2021 | $2,567,833 | $1,821,985 | $364,397 | $120,000 | $244,397 |
| 2022 | $3,508,416 | $2,642,940 | $528,588 | $120,000 | $408,588 |
| 2023 | $7,390,354 | $5,512,123 | $1,102,424 | $1,166,395 | -$63,970 |
| 2024 | $6,002,737 | $4,401,419 | $880,284 | $880,284 | $0 |
| 2025 (Jan–Dec) | $1,464,572 | $1,464,572 | $292,914 | $46,286 | $246,628 |
| TOTAL | $32,708,669 | $24,509,250 | $4,901,850 | $3,397,395 | $1,504,455 |
The Payment Shortfall & Accounting Gap
Under the Combination Agreement, Litman was owed 20% of collected fees. $246,628 owed to Litman as of Dec 2025. Payments stopped after May 2025. Additionally, a $16.2M accounting gap exists: $32.7M trust receipts vs. $16.5M Litman Summary workup. $8.9M in outstanding AR plus $1.58M WIP unbilled = $10.5M total pipeline of continuing revenue from Litman-originated matters.
Moderate: $29.1M — Full relationship revenue with punitive multiplier
Aggressive: $78.4M — Total trust receipts with treble damages + interest
$990,089 outstanding in 2025 alone. $1,464,572 billed in 2025. Payments to Litman stopped after May 2025. Trust activity continued post-lawsuit: $1.33M Oct, $501K Nov, $70K Dec 2025.
Trust Account Forensics: KFU account 36372 went into overdraft ($415,426 deficit, Nov 20, 2024). 133 smoking gun invoices. $8.6M in lump-sum transfers. Same-day sweeps of client funds. See full forensic analysis →
Migration defense destroyed — PCLaw records from 2018 show same lump-sum pattern (1,699 entries). System changed, pattern didn't.
$370K+ fee adjustment shortfall on KFU alone (20% discount across 182 entries + $314K penalties).
$3.01M outstanding across 11 Middle East clients (Feb 2025 statements, 1,228 invoices, 1.5% collected).
Litman Summary workup: ~$16.5M
Gap: ~$16.2M — This gap represents money flowing through trust accounts that was never accounted for in Litman's compensation workup.
Client Revenue Analysis
Patent counts and revenue share per client. KFU figure verified from NGM trust ledger; other clients estimated proportionally. Under Path B, the entire revenue from each client relationship is at issue.
| Client | Patents | Revenue Share | % of Total | Path B Implication |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| King Faisal University (KFU) VERIFIED | 467 | $13,839,510 | 42.3% | $13.9M recovery opportunity; $834K still in trust |
| King Saud University (KSU) | 112 | $6,870,000 | 21.0% | $6.87M receipts; $733K outstanding in 2025 |
| Kuwait Inst. for Scientific Research (KISR) | 58 | $1,189,000 | 6.4% | All KISR revenue = damages base |
| United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) | 43 | $881,000 | 4.8% | All UAEU revenue = damages base |
| Kuwait University | 35 | $717,000 | 3.9% | All KU revenue = damages base |
| Dasman Diabetes Institute | 22 | $451,000 | 2.4% | All DDI revenue = damages base |
| Sabah Al Ahmad Center | 18 | $369,000 | 2.0% | All SAAC revenue = damages base |
| Kuwait National Petroleum Co. (KNPC) | 3 | $61,000 | 0.3% | Transition evidence (Goldberg on L74) |
| Other Clients (combined) | 147 | $2,997,460 | 16.2% | All revenue = damages base |
Verified Trust Account Data FROM FIRM RECORDS
KFU revenue confirmed from NGM's own trust ledger — not estimated, not proportional, but the actual dollar amount from their books.
Interactive Damages Scenarios
Adjust the parameters below to model different damages outcomes. Toggle between Path A and Path B, then set the royalty rate, punitive multiplier, and statutory interest.
Key Legal Points for Damages
Statutory and case-law basis for the damages theory under New York Civil Rights Law.
Profits Disgorgement Available
Section 51 provides for recovery of profits derived from the unauthorized use of a person's name for advertising or trade purposes. The statute does not cap recovery at actual damages — the defendant must disgorge the profits obtained through the misappropriation.
"All the Money Received from the Client"
If per-patent revenue cannot be isolated, the entire trust receipts of $32,708,669 ($24,509,250 post-SOL) constitute the profits attributable to the use of Litman's name. The $16.2M accounting gap between trust and workup amplifies the case for full disgorgement.
905 Separate Acts of Misappropriation
Each patent listing Litman as attorney of record is an independent commercial use of his name published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Each act is separately actionable under § 51, creating 905+ independent bases for liability and damages.
Each Act Independently Actionable
Beyond the 905 patents, each USPTO filing receipt, office action response, and correspondence bearing Litman's name is a separate publication. The "deck of cards" theory identifies 206+ outgoing USPTO documents as individual § 51 violations, each supporting its own damages award.
Revenue Timeline with Key Dates
Revenue trajectory mapped against critical case milestones. Note the dramatic revenue increase following the arbitration, during the period of heaviest name misappropriation.