Conservative Damages Exposure
$11,115,876
Based solely on verified numbers from Defendant's own financial records and spreadsheets
Full profits theory: $29.6M | Total pipeline: $10.5M
Litman v. Goldberg
Index No. 524343/2025
NY Supreme Court, Kings County
NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51
Scroll to continue
The Case in 30 Seconds

Three Elements — Each Supported by Documentary Evidence

✓

Use of Name

Admitted in Goldberg's Answer
Answer ¶¶ 32, 72 — admits Litman's name appeared on patent front pages and the NGM website after 6/15/2020
✓

For Trade Purposes

$18.5M collected under Litman's name
Verified from Defendant's own fee allocation spreadsheets — 905 patents, 206 USPTO documents
✓

No Written Consent

Assignment clause — signed by Goldberg
Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment, Reel 007281, Frame 0821, recorded at USPTO May 6, 2021
Every element of §§ 50–51 liability is supported by documentary evidence that Goldberg himself created, signed, or admitted. The documentary record addresses each element of the claim.
The Key Document
Assignee agrees that Assignor owns his name, signature, voice, image, photograph or likeness.
Signed by Joshua B. Goldberg, Co-Managing Partner
Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment — Recorded at USPTO, May 6, 2021
Reel 007281, Frame 0821
Then — nine days earlier
What He Did

Five Years of Continued Use After Notice

June 15, 2020
SOL Cutoff — Litman Disabled
Goldberg's own lawyer later argued this was the date the combination agreement ended and Litman's role terminated.
November 11, 2020
MetLife Approves Disability Claim
Goldberg received the notice directly. Litman's name continued to appear on patent filings after this date.
April 30, 2021
Litman Reserves Name Rights in Writing
“The assignment does not include the right to use my name separate and apart from the mark.”
May 21, 2021
NGM Employee: “He doesn't work here anymore”
Tanya Harkins (CC'd to Goldberg): “I have worked here 20 years and this is not Litman. I would have never worked for him and he doesn't work here anymore.”
June 14, 2023
Arbitration Decision
Judge Horne rules the combination agreement terminated June 15, 2020. Any remaining doubt about Litman's disassociation is now eliminated.
March 2023 – March 2024
16 Powers of Attorney Signed by Goldberg
Goldberg personally signed 16 POAs (Reg. 44126) listing Litman as attorney of record — all AFTER Litman reserved his name rights in writing. 14 of the 16 came AFTER the arbitration decision.
December 21, 2023
The Bombshell — POA + Assignment Same Day
App 18/392,663 — Goldberg signed BOTH the Power of Attorney (listing Litman) AND the KFU assignment cover sheet on the same day. Proves personal, deliberate control.
July 2023
Client Notification Draft — Never Sent
Litman proposed notifying clients of his disassociation. Goldberg acknowledged the need but blocked it. The notification was never sent. Clients were never told.
June 24, 2025
“No basis without my consent”
Litman: “There is no basis without my consent that I should still be listed on USPTO filings associated with NGM.”
October 8, 2025
Staff First Told of Litman’s Departure
Goldberg announces Litman is “no longer connected to firm” at a staff meeting — more than 5 years after the disability, and only after the lawsuit was filed (7/21/2025). Staff including Martha Long were not informed until this date. Meeting likely recorded on Teams.
Five Key Emails

In Litman's Own Words

Follow the Money

The Financial Record

Paid for Litman's Name
$214,532
Purchase price of Litman Law Offices, Ltd. (2017)
→
Revenue Generated Under That Name
$18,526,460
Collected fees, Q1 2020 through May 2025
86x Return

Where the Money Went

Cumulative Revenue Under Litman's Name

Goldberg personally earned $76K–$236K per month from work under Litman's name
Peak: $236,082 in a single month (August 2024) — Source: Payment Allocation by Client Reports
“I would appreciate the money due through October and the reports you have.”
— Litman to Goldberg, November 8, 2024
Willfulness Evidence

Evidence Bearing on Exemplary Damages

Litman to Goldberg
“I have never put as much trust in other people as I have in you and Jerry.”
June 7, 2020
Goldberg to Litman
“I will do everything I can to continue to be worthy of that trust.”
June 8, 2020
The use of Litman's name continued for five years after this exchange.
The Cost of Going to Trial

Conservative vs. Full Profits vs. What a Jury Sees

Damages Component Conservative Full Profits
Unpaid Purchase Price Payments $214,914 $214,914
20% on Outstanding AR + WIP ($10.5M pipeline) $1,783,718 $2,099,570
§ 51 Damages — Unauthorized Name Use $3,705,292 $14,821,168
Punitive Damages $3,705,292 $11,115,876
Arbitration Award + 9% Statutory Interest $395,542 $395,542
Injunctive Relief Value (Revenue at Risk) $2,458,123 $2,458,123
Total Exposure $11,115,876 $29,642,336

A jury in Kings County would hear the account of a disabled patent attorney whose name continued to appear on patent filings and firm materials — associated with $18.5 million in collected fees and a $10.5M active pipeline of continuing revenue.

The jury would see 16 Powers of Attorney personally signed by Goldberg, Litman's written requests to be removed, and the assignment clause where Goldberg acknowledged Litman owns his own name.

The jury would also hear about the trust account overdraft ($415,426), 133 smoking gun invoices, $8.6M in lump-sum sweeps, and $8.9M in outstanding receivables still generating fees under Litman's name.

Punitive damages under New York law are uncapped.

These are the figures and documents a jury would consider.

Criminal & Bar Exposure Summary

  • Trust Account Overdraft: $415,426 deficit (Nov 20, 2024) — per se violation of Judiciary Law 497
  • 133 Invoices Under False Name: Each invoice bearing Litman's name post-termination is a separate unauthorized use
  • $8.6M Lump-Sum Sweeps: Same-day transfers from client trust to operating accounts
  • Email Account Spoliation: litman@4patent.com eliminated July 18, 2025 — one day after litigation threat
  • Professional Liability Fraud: Goldberg signed insurance application listing Litman as "Of Counsel" (7/6/2021)
  • Migration Defense Destroyed: Same lump-sum pattern in PCLaw since 2018 (1,699 entries) — system changed, pattern didn't
  • Fee Adjustments: $370K+ shortfall from unauthorized discounts (20% KFU discount, 182 entries) and $314K penalties
  • Middle East AR: $3.01M outstanding across 11 clients (Litman 20% = $602K)

Full forensic trust analysis → | Exposure analysis →

The Evidence Behind Every Number
Full Damages Breakdown
Component-by-component analysis with verified sources
Email Exhibits
Key emails with full text and analysis
Patent Deck — 206 Documents
Every USPTO document bearing Litman's name
Financial Analysis
Revenue data from Defendant's own spreadsheets
Counsel Research Hub
Complete evidence repository and analysis