# Admissions Inventory — Litman v. Goldberg

**Generated:** 2026-03-24
**Purpose:** Catalog all admissions against interest from Goldberg, NGM employees, and counsel that can be used at trial or in MSJ

---

## Summary: 12 Admissions Across 6 Sources

| # | Source | Admission | Why It Matters |
|---|--------|-----------|----------------|
| 1 | Answer ¶32 | Litman's name appeared on patent front pages after 6/15/2020 | **Concedes "use" element of § 51** |
| 2 | Answer ¶32 | Litman's name and biography on NGM website after 6/15/2020 | Concedes website use channel |
| 3 | Answer ¶72 | Repeats patent + website admission under Count V | Locked in under the surviving claim |
| 4 | Answer ¶39 | Litman became physically disabled June 2020 | Goldberg knew of vulnerability |
| 5 | Answer ¶8 | Goldberg is co-managing partner of NGM | Establishes operational control |
| 6 | Answer ¶¶1, 6 | Practice was sold in 2017 under Combination Agreement | Establishes the commercial relationship |
| 7 | Discovery Resp. #1 | No consent document produced; points only to Combination Agreement | **De facto admission no written consent exists** |
| 8 | Discovery Resp. #5 | SharePoint archive was produced to Litman 02/20/2026 | Confirms source of 276K emails |
| 9 | Harkins email (05/21/21) | "he doesn't work here anymore" — Goldberg CC'd | Internal knowledge Litman was gone |
| 10 | Goldberg email (01/17/23) | Explains POA mechanism controls attorney status | Knew exactly how name-use worked |
| 11 | Goldberg email (06/19/23) | Directed POA filing 5 days after arbitration | Continued causing name use post-arbitration |
| 12 | Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment | States "Assignor owns his name, signature, voice, image..." | **Contradicts consent defense** |

---

## Source 1: Goldberg's Verified Answer (Doc #65, Filed 01/20/2026)

**Filed by:** Connell Foley LLP (Leo J. Hurley, Jr., Esq.)
**File:** `court_filings/Litman v Goldberg Answer 65.pdf`

### Critical Admissions

**Paragraph 32 — THE KEY ADMISSION:**
> "Defendant admits only that Plaintiff's name appeared on the front page of patents issued to Plaintiff's originated clients after June 15, 2020, and that Plaintiff's name and biography appeared on NGM's website after June 15, 2020."

This concedes the first element of § 51 (use of name) for BOTH channels — patents and website — after the SOL cutoff.

**Paragraph 72 — REPEAT UNDER COUNT V:**
> "Defendant admits that Plaintiff's name appeared on the front page of patents issued to his originated clients, and on NGM's website."

Then immediately: "Defendant further denies that any alleged use of Plaintiff's name, identity, and/or reputation occurred without the consent of Plaintiff." But Goldberg produced NO consent document.

**Paragraph 33 — THE DENIAL THAT BACKFIRES:**
> "Defendant denies the allegations within paragraph 33."

Paragraph 33 alleges Goldberg "caused" Litman's name to appear. His denial is contradicted by 16 POAs bearing his personal signature (Reg. 44126), each appointing CN-37833 which carries Litman's name.

**Paragraph 38 — NUNC PRO TUNC DENIAL:**
> "Defendant denies the allegations within paragraph 38."

Paragraph 38 references the Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment. Goldberg denies it — but the document is recorded at the USPTO (Reel 007281, Frame 0821) and contains language recognizing Litman's ownership of his own name.

**Paragraph 39 — DISABILITY KNOWLEDGE:**
> "Defendant admits that in June 2020, Plaintiff became physically disabled."

Goldberg admits he knew Litman was disabled — relevant to willfulness and vulnerability.

**Paragraph 8 — OPERATIONAL CONTROL:**
> "Defendant admits that he is co-managing partner of Nath & Associates, d/b/a Nath, Goldberg & Meyer."

### Affirmative Defenses

**10th Defense — Consent:** "Plaintiff's claims are barred based on his implied and/or express consent." This creates a burden of proof on Goldberg. His Discovery Response #1 shows he cannot meet it.

---

## Source 2: Goldberg's Discovery Responses (02/26/2026)

**Filed by:** Connell Foley LLP (Aaron H. Gould, Esq.)
**File:** `court_filings/Goldberg_Discovery_Responses_2026-02-26.pdf`

**Request #1 — "Produce the Consent Document":**
Litman asked for "the agreement, license, or consent form designated by Defendant as the basis for his authority to use Plaintiff's name on United States Patents issued after June 15, 2020."

**Goldberg's Response:** Objects as overbroad, then points to "the Combination Agreements and Plaintiff's communications to Defendant requesting his continuing association with the NGM."

**Why this is devastating:** Goldberg was asked point-blank for a consent document. He produced NONE. The Combination Agreement transferred the "Litman Law Offices, Ltd." service mark — NOT personal name rights on government filings. Litman's April 30, 2021 email explicitly states: "The assignment of the LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. mark does not include the right to use my name separate and apart from the mark."

**Request #5 — SharePoint Produced:**
"Defendant produced the data responsive to this request to Plaintiff on February 20, 2026." Confirms source of the 276,899-email archive.

---

## Source 3: Tanya Harkins Statement (05/21/2021)

**Source:** Email C2051472_ND0000270307.msg (embedded in forwarded thread)
**From:** Tanya Harkins to Martha Long
**CC:** Joshua Goldberg, Jerry Meyer, Kimberly Thompson
**Date:** May 21, 2021

> "this is not Litman. I would have never worked for him and **he doesn't work here anymore.**"

A 20-year NGM employee confirms Litman was understood to no longer work at the firm by May 2021. Goldberg was CC'd — actual knowledge. Yet he signed POAs listing Litman for 3+ more years.

---

## Source 4: Goldberg's Own Emails (Party Admissions)

### a) POA Mechanism Knowledge (January 17, 2023)
To Martha Long re SACGC/Sabah Center patent:
> "Since we are the attorneys of record and the POA was signed by SACGC, he is not really permitted to contact the inventor at this stage. Either a **withdrawal of our Power of Attorney**, or some other document transferring rights back to the inventor, needs to be filed..."

Goldberg understood EXACTLY how POA filings control attorney-of-record status — and chose never to file a withdrawal for Litman.

### b) POA Filing Directed 5 Days After Arbitration (June 19, 2023)
To Martha Long:
> "yes, it is fine to send the POA to the client after the application is filed..."

Five days after the arbitration decided Litman's authority ended 6/15/2020, Goldberg was still directing POA filings that listed Litman as attorney.

### c) Litman's Status Unresolved (March 15, 2022)
> "The question all comes down to whether you will be an active employee vs. on disability/retired."

At the same time he was signing POAs listing Litman as an active attorney of record.

### d) Previous Attorney Stays on Record (September 30, 2024)
> "the previous attorney, apparently still the attorney of record according to the USPTO"

Shows Goldberg understood the attorney-of-record designation persisted — and exploited it.

---

## Source 5: Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (USPTO Record)

**Reel 007281, Frame 0821** — recorded at the USPTO by Goldberg's firm.

Contains language: **"Assignor owns his name, signature, voice, image, photograph or likeness"**

This directly contradicts the 10th Affirmative Defense (consent). Goldberg's own recorded document states Litman owns his own name — then Goldberg used it anyway on 905+ patents.

---

## Source 6: Federal Case (EDNY 1:25-cv-04048-PKC-PK)

**NGM's Opposition (DN 25, filed 10/10/2025)** by Connell Foley LLP:
- Exhibit C to DN 25 is text message excerpts (not the Goldberg Declaration)
- Argues Litman consented, USPTO filings aren't commercial speech, laches, arbitration clause
- **The Goldberg Declaration (filed separately in support of Defendant's Motion for Sanctions) should be demanded** — any sworn statements there are binding admissions

**Status:** EDNY opposition brief not in project directory. Should be obtained for additional admissions.

---

## Deposition Targets Based on Admissions

| Person | What to Pin Down | Key Document |
|--------|-----------------|--------------|
| **Goldberg** | "You admit name appeared after 6/15/2020 (¶32). Show me any document where Litman consented." | Answer + Discovery Resp. #1 |
| **Goldberg** | "You explained POA mechanism on 1/17/23. You signed 16 POAs. You never filed a withdrawal." | Exhibit 6 email + POA table |
| **Tanya Harkins** | "You said 'he doesn't work here anymore' in May 2021. What did you understand about Litman's status?" | Email ND0000270307 |
| **Martha Long** | "You sent 19,000+ emails to KFU using dockets assigned to Litman. Who directed you?" | kfu@4patent.com archive |
| **Howard Kline** | "You included Litman's name in your signature block. Who told you to do that?" | (searching) |