Litman v. Goldberg — Evidence Dashboard

Index No. 524343/2025  |  NY Supreme Court, Kings County  |  Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C.

Count V: NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51 — Misappropriation of Name

276,899 Emails Analyzed  •  230+ Documents  •  905 Patents

Key Metrics

905
Patents Listing Litman's Name After 6/15/2020
206
USPTO Documents Bearing His Name
14
POAs Signed by Goldberg Personally
5,198
Direct Litman-Goldberg Emails
0
Emails Showing Consent
$694K+
In Disputed Payments

The Case in Three Elements

NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51 requires three elements. Each is supported by documentary evidence — two by Goldberg's own admissions.

✓
Element 1 — ADMITTED

Use of Name

Goldberg ADMITS Litman's name appeared on patent front pages and the NGM website after 6/15/2020. (Answer ¶¶ 32, 72)

905 patents 206 USPTO documents nathlaw.com listing through June 2025
✓
Element 2 — SUPPORTED

For Purposes of Trade

$18.4 million in fees collected under Litman's name (2020–2025)

Firm was 76–79% dependent on Litman-originated work

DISPOSITIVE
✓
Element 3 — ESTABLISHED BY GOLDBERG'S OWN SIGNATURE

Without Written Consent

“Assignee agrees that Assignor owns his name, signature, voice, image, photograph or likeness.”

Signed by Joshua B. Goldberg, Co-Managing Partner

Recorded at USPTO, May 6, 2021 — Reel 007281, Frame 0821

View Core Exhibit →
Confirmed by Email — April 30, 2021

“The assignment of the LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. mark does not include the right to use my name separate and apart from the mark.”

Litman to Goldberg — explicit written notice that name rights were not assigned

View Core Exhibit →
Goldberg signed 14 Powers of Attorney listing Litman as patent attorney — while Litman was writing emails saying he never consented, was owed hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that Goldberg's use of his name was “inappropriate, misleading, and actionable.”

Timeline of Events

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Key Legal Dates
Litman's Objection Emails
Goldberg's POA Filings

POA Signings vs. Contemporaneous Emails

Side-by-side: what Goldberg was filing at the USPTO versus what Litman was writing at the same time.

Goldberg's Action
December 21, 2023
Goldberg signed both the Power of Attorney and the KFU assignment cover sheet for App. 18/392,663 (Patent 11,980,937) on the same day — listing Litman as patent attorney of record.
Litman's Email
December 15, 2023 (6 days before)
“Will you be sending today the reports and money for November?”
Goldberg acknowledged $179,046.07 owed to Litman. Six days later, he filed a POA using Litman's name.
Goldberg's Action
November 16, 2023
Goldberg signed Power of Attorney for App. 18/511,800 (Patent 12,116,333), listing Litman as patent attorney of record.
Litman's Email
November 13, 2023 (3 days before)
“You haven't answered several communications. When can I expect the reports and money for October?”
Litman was being ignored on financial matters while Goldberg continued using his name at the Patent Office.
Goldberg's Action
June 29, 2023
Goldberg signed Power of Attorney for App. 18/215,352 (Patent 11,881,807) — just 15 days after the arbitration decision.
Litman's Email
July 2, 2023 (3 days after)
“We need to notify Kadasa that NGM and I have parted ways and, further, we should do everything to avoid client confusion that I am still affiliated with NGM.”
Litman explicitly stated the affiliation had ended. Goldberg kept filing.
Goldberg's Action
February 14, 2024
Goldberg signed Power of Attorney for App. 18/428,327 (Patent 12,054,464), continuing to list Litman as patent attorney.
Litman's Email
February 9, 2024 (5 days before)
“I appreciate the reports and money. However, I am surprised. It seems very low in view of the volume of work.”
Litman was questioning $132,636.68 in payments. Five days later, Goldberg signed yet another POA using his name.

Financial Control Analysis

Mentions in Financial Emails

17.6x ratio — Goldberg controlled the money from work done under Litman's name

Co-occurrence with Dollar Amounts

28.4x ratio — Goldberg's name appeared with dollar figures 28 times more often

Email Analysis Breakdown

10,036 Case-Relevant Emails by Category

What the Emails Show

4,136 emails showing Goldberg controlled USPTO filings
2,759 emails showing Goldberg directed patent prosecution
1,321 emails referencing Powers of Attorney
341 emails where Litman explicitly states no consent
0 emails where Litman grants consent to use his name

Top 10 Exhibits

Exhibit 1 • Non-Consent
“Gracious Retirement?”
June 7, 2021
“What is the endgame? ... Is this some sort of gracious retirement?”
 Exhibit 2 • Name Use
“He Doesn't Work Here Anymore”
May 21, 2021
“Litman doesn't work here anymore” — while his name remained on patents.
 Exhibit 3 • Financial
“You Bought My Practice”
April 22, 2021
“You bought my practice ... I am entitled to payment.”
 Exhibit 4 • Non-Consent
“I Trusted You ... Disappointed”
March 1, 2023
“I trusted you ... I am disappointed.”
 Exhibit 5 • Non-Consent
“Not Agreed to by Me”
May 1, 2023
“This was not agreed to by me.”
 Exhibit 6 • POA Control
Goldberg Directs POA Filing
June 19, 2023
Goldberg personally directed the filing of a Power of Attorney listing Litman.
 Exhibit 7 • Non-Consent
“I Did Not Agree”
July 18, 2023
“I did not agree to this.”
 Exhibit 8 • Status
“NGM and I Have Parted Ways”
July 2, 2023
“We need to notify Kadasa that NGM and I have parted ways.”
 Exhibit 9 • Non-Consent
“No Basis Without My Consent”
June 24, 2025
“There is no basis for using my name without my consent.”
 Exhibit 10 • Formal Objection
Formal Objection to Lawyer
June 28, 2025
Litman formally objected through counsel to the continued use of his name.

Goldberg's Admissions vs. The Evidence

From Goldberg's verified Answer (Doc #65, January 20, 2026) compared to the documentary record.

Goldberg's Answer Evidence Against
Admits
Litman's name appeared on patent front pages and NGM website after 6/15/2020 (¶¶ 32, 72) 		905 patents listing Litman as attorney of record; 206 USPTO outgoing documents bearing his name; website showed him as “PATENT ATTORNEY” through June 2025
Denies
That he “caused” Litman's name to appear (¶ 33) 		14 personally-signed Powers of Attorney (Reg. No. 44126), each directing the USPTO to list Litman as attorney of record; 12 of 14 signed after the arbitration decision
Denies
The Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment paragraph (¶ 38) 		Goldberg's own recorded USPTO document (Reel 007281, Frame 0821) states Litman owns his name — contradicting his denial
Denies
Affirmative Defense #10: Consent 		0 emails showing consent across 276,899 analyzed; 3+ explicit non-consent emails (“Not agreed to by me,” “I did not agree,” “No basis without my consent”)

Evidence Resources

⚖
Top 10 Email Exhibits
Key emails with full context and analysis
★
Full Settlement Presentation
Complete evidence narrative for mediation
⚙
206-Document Patent Deck
Every USPTO document bearing Litman's name
🔍
Evidence Explorer
Search and filter all evidence offline
✎
Guided Case Walkthrough
Step-by-step interactive case presentation
$
Financial Exhibit — $18.4M Revenue
Revenue collected under Litman's name from Goldberg's own spreadsheets
$
Damages Illustration — $11.1M Conservative Exposure
Visual breakdown with charts: contractual shortfall, § 51 royalty, punitive damages, injunctive risk. All from Goldberg's own records.
⚖
Detailed Damages Memo
Full legal analysis: arbitration enforcement, Section 51 profits/royalty theories, punitive damages calculations