CASE SUMMARY

Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County
Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C.

Surviving Claim: Count V — N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 (Misappropriation of Name for Trade Purposes). Counts I–IV were dismissed December 5, 2025.

Plaintiff: Richard C. Litman — patent attorney, 50+ year career, originated and built the intellectual property practice that became the dominant revenue source for the law firm Nath, Goldberg & Meyer ("NGM").

Defendant: Joshua B. Goldberg — Co-Managing Partner of NGM, Reg. No. 44126 (USPTO), admitted in DC and Virginia (not New York). Operating from Brooklyn, NY.

I. The Claim in One Paragraph

After Litman's employment was terminated effective June 15, 2020, Goldberg continued using Litman's name as the attorney of record on 905 U.S. patents, 245 trademark dockets, and tens of thousands of client-facing communications — all without Litman's consent — while collecting approximately $18.4 million in fees generated by that name use and paying Litman a fraction of what was owed. Goldberg personally signed 16 Powers of Attorney listing Litman's name after the termination date, 14 of them after an arbitration decision declared the relationship adversarial. Each use of Litman's name constitutes a separate violation of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 51.

II. The Three Statutory Elements and the Evidence for Each

Section 51 requires proof of three elements: (1) use of plaintiff's name, (2) for purposes of advertising or trade, (3) without plaintiff's written consent.

A. Element 1: Use of Plaintiff's Name

What we have:

1. 905 issued U.S. patents listing "Richard C. Litman" as attorney of record on Line 74 of the patent front page, all granted between June 15, 2020 and January 14, 2025. Each is a permanent U.S. government record, self-authenticating under CPLR 4540.
2. 28,870 individual name uses verified across 22 patent file wrappers at an average of 32 uses per wrapper (range: 23–51). These include Filing Receipts, Office Actions, Notices of Allowance, Issue Fee Transmittals, EFS Acknowledgment Receipts, and the issued patent itself. Each document lists Litman's name as the attorney of record via USPTO Customer Number 37833.
3. 16 Powers of Attorney personally signed by Goldberg (Reg. 44126) designating Litman as attorney of record on patent applications filed after June 15, 2020. The most recent was signed January 17, 2025. Fourteen of the sixteen were signed after the June 14, 2023 arbitration decision.
4. 245 trademark dockets listing Litman as attorney or correspondent at the USPTO, spanning September 2020 through January 2026. This includes 8+ TTAB proceedings, 20+ sworn Section 8/9/15 declarations (through July 2, 2025), and at least one new Intent-to-Use application (TUFFKOTE, SN 90830083) filed under Litman's name in July 2021 and abandoned when no one responded.
5. 40,694 emails sent by NGM paralegal Martha Long to client distribution aliases on the 4patent.com domain (acquired by NGM in the May 2017 Amendment, bearing Litman's name), including kfu@4patent.com, ksu@4patent.com, kisr@4patent.com, and clientservice@4patent.com. Of these, 24,526 emails carried USPTO document attachments listing Litman's name as attorney of record, delivering a total of 149,067 individual name-bearing attachments to the paying client audience.
6. Assignment correspondent records at the USPTO listing "RICHARD C. LITMAN NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER" as the named correspondent on two post-arbitration KFU patent assignments (October 29 and December 21, 2023), both signed by Goldberg. By February 2024, Goldberg substituted his own name, proving the earlier use of Litman's name was a deliberate choice.
7. NGM website (nathlaw.com) listed Litman as "PATENT ATTORNEY" (without "Retired") through at least June 21, 2025 (Wayback Machine capture). He was removed entirely by September 5, 2025.
8. Name use extending into 2026: USPTO trademark notifications addressed to Litman were still being transmitted through January 30, 2026. The litman@4patent.com email alias was still receiving mail as of February 2, 2026. Nobody has revoked Litman's connection to Customer Number 37833.

Defendant's admission: Goldberg's Answer (Doc #65, ¶¶ 32, 72) admits that Litman's name appeared on patent front pages and the NGM website after June 15, 2020.

B. Element 2: For Purposes of Advertising or Trade

What we have:

1. $18.4 million in fees collected under Litman's name from 2020–2025 (from Goldberg's own financial records). Litman is listed as the originating and/or responsible attorney on 98% of all NGM matters (6,518 of 6,643 matters per NGM's own Soluno practice-management export).
2. Firm revenue dependency: In representative months, 76–79% of all firm revenue was collected under Litman's name as "responsible attorney." In October 2024, KFU alone generated $992,943 — 77% of the firm's entire revenue that month.
3. Martha Long's solicitation emails: In at least four confirmed instances, Martha Long used Litman's name to attract new paying clients. For example, when Mohammad Al-Harbi (Kuwait, June 15, 2023) sought a consultation with "Mr. Richard C. Litman," Long responded: "I have worked with Richard Litman for the past 27 years and would be delighted to assist you," then pitched a $750 patent search. This is textbook § 51 advertising use.
4. Five named clients drawn by the name:
   • Thomas Bennington (July 3, 2025): "a customer of Richard Litman's from way back... I thought the world of Mr. Litman"
   • Omar Albannai (August 17, 2025): "East or west Richard is the best, you are unplaceable to me"
   • Lev Dvorkin (September 18, 2025): "I turned to your firm solely for the reason that Mr. Richard Litman works with you"
   • Lynn Odland / Dakota AG (October 8, 2024): "Our experience with The Litman Law office was such that we are not interested in looking elsewhere"
   • Dr. Faisal Al-Refaei / Dasman Diabetes Institute (November 12, 2024): identified the firm by Litman's name and tied retention to his goodwill
5. KFU patent exhibition (March 10, 2025): King Faisal University publicly exhibited physical models and prototypes of patented inventions at a university showcase — inventions prosecuted under Litman's name. KFU holds 574 U.S. patents through this firm, making it the #1 patent-granting university globally, ahead of the University of California, Harvard, MIT, and Stanford.
6. Professional liability insurance: Goldberg signed an insurance application on July 6, 2021 listing Litman as "Of Counsel" — using his professional status for the firm's insurance coverage, a commercial purpose.
7. "LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD." federal trademark (SN 74440111, Reg. #1861297) is now owned by Nath & Associates PLLC, Goldberg's entity. They literally own a federal trademark consisting of Litman's name.

C. Element 3: Without Written Consent

What we have:

1. Zero consent documents found in 276,899 emails searched across two PST archives, multiple Gmail accounts, and uncle's iCloud Photos. No written consent for post-June 15, 2020 name use has ever been produced by either side.
2. The Combination Agreement and its Amendment (the only written agreements between the parties) contain zero provisions regarding personal name use, consent for name use, goodwill in a personal name, or authorization for Powers of Attorney. We have read every word of both documents.
3. Three explicit written objections from Litman:
   • April 30, 2021: "does not include the right to use my name"
   • May 2023: objection during arbitration proceedings
   • June 24, 2025: "no basis without my consent... it has to stop"
4. Goldberg's own Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821, recorded at the USPTO) states that Litman owns his name — directly contradicting Goldberg's Affirmative Defense #10 (consent).
5. The disability argument as a sword: Litman had his own private disability insurance policies that paid for 24 months to age 65 with no questions asked. Goldberg's position in the arbitration was that Litman's disability terminated the employment relationship. If Litman was effectively incapacitated in Goldberg's own characterization, he could not have given informed consent to ongoing name use. A person cannot simultaneously be too disabled to work and capable of consenting to the commercial exploitation of his professional identity. Litman was not a partner — the partner exception does not apply.
6. Judicial estoppel: Goldberg argued in the 2023 arbitration that the Combination Agreement terminated as of June 15, 2020. The arbitrator accepted this position. Goldberg now claims the same agreement authorized ongoing name use. He cannot take inconsistent positions in successive proceedings.
7. "Purely as a courtesy": In response to the Bill of Particulars (Eighth Defense), Goldberg characterized the continued name use as "purely as a courtesy" — which is an admission that there was no contractual or consensual authorization.

III. The Financial Evidence — What Was Taken

Litman was entitled to 20% of all fees collected on matters he originated. The following figures are derived from Goldberg's own financial records, produced by his own counsel (Aaron Gould, Connell Foley LLP).

A. Overall Financial Picture

* The "credited" figure includes NGM's own internal $10,000-per-month bookkeeping entries (~$290,000, Oct 2020 – Feb 2023) that were posted as a disputed offset against Litman's private disability benefits rather than as actual disbursements. NGM's last actual payment to Litman occurred on September 27, 2020. The true "actually paid" figure is materially smaller than the number that appears on NGM's ledger; the shortfall is correspondingly larger. (Per Richard Litman, 04/16/2026.)

The actual payment history — what "paid" really means. NGM's last actual payment to Litman was on September 27, 2020 — a paycheck for collections on billings through the contract termination date of June 15, 2020. After that date, NGM paid Litman nothing. Beginning in October 2020, NGM's internal summary sheets show a $10,000-per-month entry deducted as a claimed offset against Litman's private disability insurance benefits — appearing in firm-side bookkeeping as $30,000/quarter. This was not an actual payment; it was a unilateral deduction without contractual authority (disability benefits are not an authorized offset under the Combination Agreement). The fictional deduction continued for 29 months (approximately October 2020 through February 2023), totaling $290,000 wrongly offset, before the bookkeeping entries themselves stopped (2023) and were never resumed (2024–2025) — despite record-breaking firm collections during the same period. What is actually owed on this issue alone: the $290,000 wrongly offset, prejudgment interest on each missed $10,000 monthly payment, and the unpaid remainder of the 20% allocation beyond the $10,000 base. (Per Richard Litman, 04/16/2026.)

B. Per-Client Accounting Forensics

Deep forensic analysis of the three largest institutional clients with patents within the statute of limitations:

C. The Mechanism of Diversion

The evidence shows a systematic three-step scheme:

1. Client wire deposits into umbrella trust accounts rather than into specific patent docket accounts. This gave Goldberg sole discretion over allocation. For KFU alone, $10.7 million flowed through a single umbrella account (36372).
2. Transfers from trust to operating without invoice references. Of 86 KFU lump-sum operating transfers, only 3 contained any invoice reference. The remaining 83 were described simply as "Transfer to Operating." Without invoice references, Litman's 20% was never triggered in the billing system.
3. Goldberg's personal approval required for every transfer. Email evidence shows Martha Long requesting "Pending Josh's approval, please transfer funds" — with Goldberg replying "Approved" from Brooklyn, NY. This was not an automated system; it was personal, discretionary control.

D. The Three Most Egregious Transactions

KFU — March 18, 2024: A $595,214 KFU wire went directly to NGM's operating account, bypassing the trust account entirely. NGM's own accounting system (Soluno) recorded the amount $1,000 short ($594,214). A correction entry dated March 19, 2024 acknowledges the bypass. Litman's 20% on this wire (~$119,043) was never credited. This is a per se violation of trust accounting rules (VA RPC 1.15, DC RPC 1.15, 37 CFR § 11.115).

KSU — December 23, 2022: KSU wired $1,437,518 to NGM's Bank of America trust account. The actual wire transfer slip is in evidence. Within 4–5 days, $1,290,721 (89.8%) was moved to operating across five transfers, none containing invoice references. Of 326 KSU patent dockets in the reconciliation, 224 (68.7%) show $0 collected and $0 credited to Litman — despite the money having been received and transferred to operating. Litman's 20% on this wire (~$287,504): $0 credited.

KISR — December 30, 2024: When KISR wired $15,416.36 and the invoice balance was higher, Goldberg wrote by email: "Yes, that remaining 15% should be written off." He unilaterally forgave approximately $2,720 owed by a Litman-originated client without consulting Litman, reducing the pool from which Litman's 20% would be calculated. Total KISR trust receipts: $272,368. Litman's 20% credited: $0.

E. Goldberg's Written Admissions on the Accounting

"many of [the Trust Ledgers] are blank... For KFU, you should clearly receive your percentage of any non-USPTO fees we received. If that is not happening, I need to figure out why." — Goldberg to Litman, June 11, 2025

"Thanks for flagging this. I will have a look at all this to confirm. If we have to send a second wire to make up any shortfall, we will." — Goldberg to Litman, June 13, 2025

"invoice numbers are not matching up with matter numbers." — Goldberg, July 16, 2025

IV. Willfulness and Pattern of Concealment

1. Active concealment of financial reports: NGM generated a July 2025 Payment Allocation Report on August 11, 2025 and withheld it for eight months through active discovery. The report existed in NGM's system the entire time. August and September 2025 reports are also presumed suppressed.
2. Email retaliation: On July 18, 2025 — one day after Litman's explicit litigation threat — Goldberg eliminated Litman's email accounts (litman@4patent.com and his NathLaw account). An OpenGov procurement registration dated September 2, 2025 shows "Joshua Goldberg" registered with the email address litman@4patent.com — proving the account was seized, not destroyed.
3. Client renumbering scheme: 9 of 12 major institutional clients (75%) appear in both the @4patent.com alias inventory and a parallel renumbering scheme where Litman's clients were assigned alternate NGM client numbers (starting with "1," "J," or "5") to bypass his revenue allocation. The double overlay covers $17.2 million in trust receipts.
4. January 14–21, 2025 name switchover: Between these dates, Litman's name was replaced by Goldberg's on patent front pages (Line 74). Patent 12,194,434 (January 14) was the last to list Litman; Patent 12,201,650 (January 21) was the first to list Goldberg. All 205 NGM patents granted after the switchover list Goldberg. This proves consciousness of wrongdoing and the ability to control the name use at any time.
5. The December 21, 2023 "bombshell": Six months after the arbitration decision declared the relationship adversarial, Goldberg signed both a Power of Attorney and a KFU assignment cover sheet listing Litman's name on the same day for Application 18/392,663. This cannot be characterized as routine or inadvertent.
6. CN-37833 access refused: Litman formally demanded access to or reporting on all uses through USPTO Customer Number 37833 on January 30, 2026. Goldberg's lawyers refused without explanation. This customer number controls which name appears on all USPTO correspondence for pending applications.
7. Deposition default: Three emails with Zoom credentials were sent for Goldberg's February 24, 2026 deposition. He failed to appear.

V. Goldberg's Affirmative Defenses — All Defeated

VI. The Evidence Inventory

VII. Damages Framework

A. Tier 1 — Hard Floor (100% admitted by defendant's own documents)

B. Tier 2 — Documented Shortfall (existing record, no new discovery needed)

C. Tier 3 — Per-Publication Statutory Damages (§ 51)

Section 51 permits compensatory damages and, where the use was knowing, exemplary damages. Under the "deck of cards" theory, each distinct commercial use is a separate § 51 publication:

D. Willfulness Multiplier

The pattern of active concealment (8-month report suppression), email retaliation (one day after litigation threat), client renumbering, and continued name use despite three written objections supports a willfulness multiplier of 1.5x to 5x applied to the Tier 1–2 base.

E. Summary Valuation

VIII. Current Status and Next Steps

Settlement probability: 80–85%. The combination of forensically documented financial shortfalls ($2.84M from defendant's own records), 28,870 verified name uses, and five independent client declarations makes the liability case overwhelming. The primary remaining variable is Goldberg's willingness to settle versus his historical pattern of delay and non-payment.

This summary is based on evidence in the litigation record as of April 9, 2026. All dollar amounts are derived from defendant-produced documents or plaintiff's contemporaneous records.