AI-Powered Case Analysis

Evidence Intelligence

276,899 emails. 905 patents. One unmistakable pattern.
Litman v. Goldberg • Index No. 524343/2025 • NY Sup. Ct., Kings County

Communication Network

276,899 Emails — Who Talked to Whom
Litman (Name Used)
Goldberg (Defendant)
Martha Long (Conduit)
Kline (Trademark)
Lafave (PTOL-85B)
Clients
Other Staff

Five Years of Name Use — Day by Day

Calendar heatmap of evidence activity, Jan 2020 – Dec 2025
None
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
Defendant Act
Key Event

What He Says vs. What We Prove

Every denial, systematically demolished

Case Strength Assessment

AI-analyzed confidence across all elements
Overall Case Strength
Based on 276,899 emails analyzed, 905 patents reviewed, 12 formal admissions identified, and zero consent documents produced, the evidence supports all three elements of NY Civil Rights Law § 51 with high confidence. The defendant's own verified Answer concedes the use element. 16 personal POA signatures establish direct causation. Post-arbitration conduct demonstrates willfulness.

Evidence DNA — The Pattern Repeats

Four patents, one identical mechanism
POA Filed (Goldberg)
Filing Receipt (Litman)
Office Actions
Notice of Allowance
PTOL-85B (Lafave)
Patent Issued