Columns

Butzel recently added attorney Veronica Shaykhet as an associate in the firm’s Troy office. She is dedicated to delivering counsel to clients facing litigation and dispute resolution matters. Shaykhet works with individuals and entities in a variety of sectors to understand their businesses and their objectives, developing strategies tailored to their needs.

Prior to joining Butzel, Shaykhet spent more than eight years as a television news reporter. She worked at stations across the state, including FOX 2 in Detroit. Through her stories, Shaykhet enjoyed helping people and showcasing Michigan’s unique communities. Once she decided to focus on law, Shaykhet interned at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan. There, she drafted motions, assisted with trial preparation, and more. She also interned with U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Edmund, Eastern District of Michigan, where she drafted an order and observed various court proceedings.

Shaykhet earned a law degree from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and graduated first in her class. She graduated from Central Michigan University with a double major in Broadcast Journalism and Integrative Public Relations.

•           •            •

McKeen & Associates is proud to announce that eight of its attorneys have been recognized by Super Lawyers.

The following attorneys were named to the 2026 Michigan Super Lawyers list:

Brian McKeen
J. Kelly Carley
Richard Counsman
Andrew Kay
John LaParl Jr.
Kenneth Lee
David Tirella

In addition, McKeen attorney Kiersten Jo Reinhold was recognized as a 2026 Michigan Rising Star, an honor reserved for outstanding attorneys early in their careers.
Brian McKeen also received two of the publication’s highest distinctions, earning a place among the Top 10 Lawyers in Michigan and the Top Five Personal Injury Lawyers in Michigan.

•           •            •

Kemp Klein is proud to announce that twelve of its attorneys have been recognized on the 2026 Michigan Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists.  

The following attorneys were named 2026 Michigan Super Lawyers:

C. Leslie Banas – Business / Corporate Law
Joseph P. Buttiglieri – Estate & Trust Litigation
Ralph A. Castelli Jr. – Business / Corporate Law
Mark R. Filipp – Employment Litigation: Defense
Brian R. Jenney – Estate & Probate Law
Alan A. May – Estate & Probate Law
Brian H. Rolfe – Business Litigation
Amy A. Stawski – Family Law
Cynthia L. Umphrey – Business / Corporate Law
Robert S. Zawideh – Estate & Trust Litigation

Brian R. Jenney was also recognized among the Top 100: 2026 Michigan Super Lawyers.

The following attorneys were named 2026 Michigan Rising Stars:

Casey W. Callahan – Estate & Probate Law
Austin W. Probst – Estate & Probate Law

•           •            •

Varnum is pleased to announce that Robert Silman has joined the firm’s Litigation and ADR Practice Team in the Novi office.

Silman represents clients in commercial litigation and other business-related claims, including contract, tort, fraud, products liability, and negligence matters. He works with businesses to evaluate risk, develop litigation strategy, and navigate cases through fact development, discovery, briefing, motions practice, and resolution.

His background includes internal investigations, drawing on prior work representing clients in litigation and investigation-related matters. He also served as a judicial extern to 
U.S. District Court Judge Sara L. Ellis, Northern District of Illinois.

Silman earned his law degree from Indiana University Maurer School of Law and his undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan.

•           •            •

Bodman PLC is pleased to announce that Gregory LaVoy has joined the firm as a Member in the firm’s Litigation Practice Group.

Based in Bodman’s Troy office, LaVoy represents clients in complex litigation in state and federal courts. He has experience handling a range of matters involving construction defects, tort and automobile liability, premises liability, and other disputes. He has successfully represented clients before Michigan’s appellate courts, obtaining a number of reversals of trial court rulings.

Before joining Bodman, LaVoy was a partner at a Michigan-based civil defense firm, where he handled a range of appellate and civil litigation matters. After earning his law degree, he served as a law clerk to Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert P. Young Jr.

•           •            •

Taft is pleased to announce that 48 attorneys in its Detroit office have been selected to the Leading Lawyers Network for 2026. This includes three Emerging Lawyers.

Following are the Taft Detroit honorees:

Gus Andreasen
Thomas Bejin
Marko J. Belej
Jeremy D. Bisdorf
Jordan S. Bolton
Joshua M. Borson (Emerging Lawyer)
Trey Brice
Christopher Cataldo
Kimberly Clayson
Mark G. Cooper
Thomas Coughlin
Joseph J. DeVito
Steven Enwright
Kreuza Gjezi
Joel S. Golden
Michelle C. Harrell
Michael F. Jacobson
Lee Kellert
Milton I. Kovinsky
Mark L. Kowalsky
Richard Kruger
Sara M. Kruse
Mark P. Krysinski
Joseph Lash
Jennifer M. LaTosch
Steven Lefkofsky
Bill Lentine
Robert E. Lewis
Susan S. Lichterman
Eli Maroko
Emily Mayer (Emerging Lawyer)
Derek D. McLeod
Nicole Meisner
Judith Greenstone Miller
Gregory W. Moore
Elizabeth Rogers
Mark D. Rubenfire
Michelle A. Rubin (Emerging Lawyer)
Stuart Schwartz
Aaron H. Sherbin
William E. Sider
Arthur Siegal
Gina Staudacher
Susan M. Sutton
Scott R. Torpey
Thomas Walters
Billee Lightvoet Ward
Arthur A. Weiss
Jeffrey Weiss
Jay Welford
Richard A. Zussman

•           •            •

Brooks Kushman is proud to announce that eight of the firm’s attorneys have been named to the 2026 Michigan Super Lawyers: 

John LeRoy – a shareholder in Brooks Kushman’s Intellectual Property Litigation practice, representing clients in high-tech disputes involving patents, trade secrets, copyrights, software, electronics, and mechanical systems. With more than two decades of IP litigation experience and advanced technical training in electrical and mechanical engineering, he helps clients navigate technology disputes, licensing issues, and business-critical innovation challenges. LeRoy also leads the firm’s FRAND and other licensing disputes work and Open Source Compliance practice, advising automotive OEMs, suppliers, and technology companies on standard essential patent licensing, source code audits, and open source software compliance. His work is relevant to companies in automotive and mobility, electrical and computer technology, information technology services and software, and medical devices and healthcare brands industries.

Christopher Smith – co-chair of the Litigation practice at Brooks Kushman, where he focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation. He represents Fortune 500 companies and startups in IP matters across industries including automotive (including infotainment), medical devices, internet technologies such as content delivery networks, and telecommunications including fiber optics. Smith is a registered patent attorney before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and is recognized for his work in high-stakes intellectual property litigation, including the preparation of infringement and invalidity opinions and strategic counseling in technically complex disputes.

Hope Shovein – a shareholder and co-chair of Brooks Kushman’s Trademark practice, counseling clients on the development, protection, and enforcement of valuable brand assets. She advises companies on trademark clearance, prosecution, portfolio management, and enforcement strategies that support long-term brand growth. Her work is relevant for businesses in retail, e-commerce, and direct-to-consumer spaces, as well as companies managing complex consumer products portfolios. Shovein helps clients align their brand protection strategies with broader business goals in domestic and international markets.

Marc Lorelli – a shareholder and co-chair of Brooks Kushman’s Intellectual Property Litigation practice, representing clients in high-stakes disputes involving patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and other IP assets. He helps companies protect innovation, manage risk, and resolve complex conflicts through litigation, negotiation, and strategic enforcement. Lorelli’s work supports clients across technology-focused industries, including automotive and mobility, industrial manufacturing, and consumer-facing markets. He also brings litigation insight to matters involving trademark enforcement, trade secrets, and broader IP portfolio strategy.

Frank Angileri – a shareholder in Brooks Kushman’s Intellectual Property Litigation practice, helping clients enforce and defend valuable intellectual property rights. He counsels businesses on litigation strategy involving patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and other competitive assets. Angileri’s experience is beneficial to companies in innovation-driven sectors, including automotive and mobility, industrial manufacturing, and advanced materials. His litigation perspective helps clients connect enforcement decisions with practical business objectives.

Molly Mack Crandall – a co-chair of Brooks Kushman’s Trademark practice, where she focuses on trademark clearance, prosecution, enforcement, licensing, and brand protection. She counsels clients ranging from startups to established companies on strategies for developing, protecting, and maintaining strong brand portfolios. Her practice includes work tied to licensing and agreements, online enforcement, and matters before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Crandall’s experience is relevant for clients in consumer products, retail, e-commerce, and direct-to-consumer, and entrepreneurs and startups markets.

William Abbatt – a shareholder in Brooks Kushman’s Patent Prosecution practice, helping innovators secure patent protection for technologies and products. He works with clients to develop patent portfolios that support commercialization, investment, and long-term competitive advantage. His technical background and prosecution experience support clients in sectors such as industrial manufacturing, advanced materials, and automotive and mobility. Abbatt helps clients connect patent strategy with broader business and innovation goals.

Rebecca Cantor – a shareholder whose practice spans Trademark and Intellectual Property Litigation matters, giving clients a practical perspective on both brand protection and enforcement. She advises businesses on trademark strategy, dispute resolution, and the protection of valuable intellectual property assets. Her work is relevant for companies navigating retail, e-commerce, and direct-to-consumer, consumer products, and other brand-focused markets. Cantor helps clients develop legal strategies that support commercial goals while protecting brand equity.

Charles A. Bieneman – a shareholder in Brooks Kushman’s Patent Prosecution practice, assisting clients with protecting innovation through thoughtful patent portfolio development. He works with inventors and businesses to identify protectable technologies and align patent strategies with long-term growth. His practice supports companies in technical sectors such as industrial manufacturing, automotive and mobility, and advanced materials. Bieneman helps clients approach patent prosecution with a focus on business value, enforceability, and competitive positioning.

Five of the firm’s attorneys were also named to the 2026 Rising Stars list, which honors lawyers who are under 40 years old, or who have been practicing for 10 years or less:

Chelsea Pasquali – a shareholder in Brooks Kushman’s Intellectual Property Litigation practice, representing clients in disputes involving intellectual property and related business issues. She helps companies protect innovations, manage litigation risk, and enforce rights in competitive markets. Her work supports clients across industries where IP is central to business value, including consumer products, retail, e-commerce, and direct-to-consumer, and industrial manufacturing. Pasquali brings a litigation perspective to strategies involving patents, trademarks, and trade secrets.

Dustin Zak – a registered patent attorney who focuses his practice on patent litigation and prosecution. Zak possesses a range of technical experience, from chemical and material arts to software applications and artificial intelligence. He has technical knowledge related to cybersecurity and computer technologies. During his studies, Zak immersed himself in many technical topics including C++, Java, and visual basic programming, networking, open-source networking, end-user computing, ethical hacking and offensive security, cyber intelligence, Linux security administration, information security, risk-vulnerability analysis, and digital forensics.

Reza Roghani Esfahani – an intellectual property litigation attorney with experience in patent and trade secret disputes involving mechanical, chemical, pharmaceutical, and computer-related technologies. His practice includes Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Prosecution, Post-Grant Proceedings, and Trade Secrets matters. Esfahani’s technical background supports clients in sectors such as automotive and mobility, industrial manufacturing, life sciences and biotechnology, and medical devices. He helps clients protect and defend business-critical technologies through strategies grounded in both legal and technical understanding.

Fatima Kassem – an associate in Brooks Kushman’s Trademark practice, assisting clients with trademark clearance, prosecution, portfolio management, and brand protection. She helps businesses secure and maintain trademark rights while supporting broader strategies for protecting brand identity in competitive markets. Her work is well aligned with clients in retail, e-commerce, and direct-to-consumer, consumer products, and entrepreneurs and startups sectors. Kassem supports clients in building trademark strategies that can grow with their business.

Chloe Conway – an associate in Brooks Kushman’s Trademark practice, helping clients protect and strengthen brands through trademark counseling. She assists with trademark prosecution, portfolio management, enforcement considerations, and brand protection strategy. Her work supports companies in brand-driven industries, including consumer products, retail, e-commerce, and direct-to-consumer, and entrepreneurs and startups. Conway helps clients approach trademark protection with a focus on long-term business growth and market positioning.

By Marie E. Matyjaszek

Many family law cases are referred to the Friend of the Court (FOC) Attorney Referee for hearings on contested issues like custody, parenting time, child support, pre-judgment spousal support, and a variety of other legal matters. If the parties do not agree with the Referee’s recommendation, they can file an objection within 21 days after the recommendation has been served. 

It’s important to know that the 21 days start from the date the FOC Referee mailed or otherwise served the recommendation, not from the date the recommendation is received. Referee hearings are often viewed as mini-trials, as the court can choose to simply review the hearing if both parties had a full and fair opportunity to present their case.

Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 3.215(E) outlines the post-hearing procedures for Referee hearings. One of the most important parts of this court rule is contained in section E(4) – the objection “must include a clear and concise statement of the specific findings or application of law to which an objection is made. Objections regarding the accuracy or completeness of the recommendation must state with specificity the inaccuracy or omission.” 

Despite the call for “specificity,” you would not believe (or maybe you would) the number of objections received that simply state, “I object to the recommended order,” or “I do not agree,” and provide little to no other reasoning. While the court has many powers, being a mind-reader isn’t one of them.

If there is an attorney on the other side of the case, I can assure you that failing to follow the court rule will be brought up in the response to the objection, as it should be. Courts can afford more leniency when an individual represents himself, especially since the advent of Canon 3(a)(4) in the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, but this doesn’t mean the court rule can be ignored. 

Assuming the objections were properly set before the court for a hearing, and proof of service is in the file, the court may allow the objecting party to flush out the issues with the recommendation on the record at the hearing. Additional details help the court determine if an actual objection exists, or if the person simply doesn’t like the result and just wants to take his ball and go home.

I’m not suggesting that you should write a 50-page objection or attach documents dating back to the beginning of time, but you need to be thorough and specific when objecting to a recommendation. This will allow you the best opportunity to have the matter reviewed and hopefully receive a more accurate and favorable outcome.
————————
Marie E. Matyjaszek is a judicial attorney at the Washtenaw County Trial Court; however, the views expressed in this column are her own. She can be reached by emailing her at matyjasz@hotmail.com.

By Donald M. Fenton

In January 1776, months before the Continental Congress declared independence, an immigrant pamphleteer named Thomas Paine compressed the entire case for American self-government into a slim, plain-spoken pamphlet. “Common Sense” did not merely argue for separation from Britain; it named the principle that would have to replace a king. “So far as we approve of monarchy,” Paine wrote, “in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”

Six months later, in July 1776, the Declaration of Independence made it official — all are created equal, endowed with unalienable rights, and governed only by the consent of the governed. Paine supplied the spark; the Declaration supplied the covenant. But a covenant is only words until someone is willing, day after day, to make the law actually reign.

We tend to picture the guardians of that covenant in the marble buildings of Washington. Yet most Americans will never argue before the Supreme Court. We meet the promise of 1776 in far humbler rooms — a traffic docket, a sentencing hearing, a district courtroom in a county seat. The economist and former labor secretary Robert Reich has argued that a democracy survives only on commitments its citizens honor even when they are inconvenient: respect for the rule of law in spirit as well as letter, protection of independent institutions, and the understanding that no one — however powerful — stands above the law. In “The Common Good,” Reich warns that when winning at any cost replaces those commitments, the whole civic fabric frays.

Chief Justice John Roberts once distilled the ideal into a single sentence: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges.” What we have, he insisted, are judges striving to do equal justice to whoever appears before them.

I do not write as a detached observer. I write as a man who has been, in the same season of life, both saint and sinner — and who has met the law from the gallery and from the defendant’s chair alike.

The saint, such as he is: this year I became a certified paralegal and an honored graduate — featured at the 2026 commencement — of the distinguished, ABA-approved paralegal-studies program led by Sara Bowman and Robert Long at Oakland Community College’s Orchard Ridge campus in Farmington Hills. 

Over the past two years I have published three articles in The Detroit Legal News and The Oakland County Legal News, and I have taken my seat at the Oakland County Bar Association’s “Boot Camp” for new lawyers and paralegals. I have spent this chapter of my life studying the law with something close to reverence.

The sinner is a plainer story. In 2025 I was a tourist in Cadillac, up north for the skiing — I am an active skier and a senior-division Alpine slalom winner — when I hoisted a few too many brews and made the worst decision a person can make with car keys in his pocket. I tried to drive back to my hotel. I earned my first and only OWI.

And so I stood before the Honorable Corey Wiggins of the 84th District Court in Cadillac. He was not lenient — the law is not lenient about a car driven drunk, nor should it be. But he was scrupulously, proportionately fair. He read the situation, weighed the evidence, balanced the interest of the state against the rights of the individual, and rendered judgment by the book — no lighter for my credentials, no heavier for my folly. My own attorney afterward described him as a level-headed judge who called it exactly as the law required. In that courtroom I experienced, as a defendant, the very principle I had studied as a student: that the law is king, that no man is above it, and that every person — the erring tourist emphatically included — is entitled to equal treatment and equal protection under it. For teaching me that lesson from the bench rather than from a book, Judge Wiggins is my hero.

His path lends weight to that fairness. Before Governor Whitmer appointed him in 2025, Wiggins was Wexford County’s elected prosecutor, and before that a defense attorney in his own firm — he has stood at every table in the courtroom. A longtime volunteer with the Cadillac Area YMCA and Silent Observer, he is the kind of judge most Americans actually encounter: local, accessible, and quietly determined to get it right.

I met my second hero in a very different setting. At that Oakland County Bar Association Boot Camp, one of the presenters was the Honorable Michael Warren, who has sat on Oakland County’s Sixth Judicial Circuit Court since 2002 and presided over hundreds of jury trials. I came away equally impressed—by his presentations, his books, and a command of constitutional law that is rare on any bench. Judge Warren has spent decades teaching the country why its founding principles still matter: in 2009, with his 10-year-old daughter Leah, he co-founded Patriot Week, now marked across the nation; he teaches constitutional law, hosts a civics podcast, and has written a line-by-line study of the Declaration of Independence — the very document whose promises he applies from the bench. Here is a jurist who understands that equal justice under law is not a slogan but a discipline.

Notice something about these two men. One was placed on the bench by a Republican governor, the other by a Democrat. That is not an accident of my admiration; it is the point. The rule of law is the property of no party. It is the common inheritance Paine described — the king we chose instead of a king — and it works the same for the powerful and the powerless, the celebrated and the ashamed.

These are my personal heroes in the judicial branch of our tripartite system — the branch that, on its best days, holds the other two to the same law it held me to on my worst. Two hundred and fifty years after Paine, the law is king only because people are willing to make it so — not once, in a famous document, but every ordinary morning, in courthouses most of us drive past without a second thought. I know, because one of them held me to it. And I am grateful.
————————
Donald M. Fenton is a certified paralegal and consulting engineer in southeastern Michigan. Quotations from Thomas Paine are drawn from )Common Sense” (1776); the founding promises referenced are from the Declaration of Independence (1776). The framework of the rule of law and the common good draws on Robert B. Reich, “The Common Good” (Alfred A. Knopf, 2018). The remark by Chief Justice John Roberts is from his November 2018 public statement. The account of the author’s case reflects his own recollection. 

By Berl Falbaum

Periodically, someone in the public arena makes a statement that rattles one’s moral conscience to its roots as never before.

And that’s not easy in the Trump era.

But Bret Louis Stephens, a political columnist at The New York Times managed to rattle mine and, I expect and hope, many others.

In a column on South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who died July 11, Stephens discussed Graham’s Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde switch from condemning Trump before becoming the ultimate Trumpite.

Here is what Stephens wrote in his concluding paragraph:

“…he [Graham] didn’t let his moral or intellectual self-respect get in the way of advancing them [his policies and interests]. There’s a nobility in that, too.”

No, I did not misquote him.  

Stephens advises us that it’s noble to give up your moral and self-respect to support a man whom Graham called a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot,” “shallow” and who “doesn’t represent the values that the men and women who wear the uniform are fighting for.”

It’s noble to back a man who assaulted women, incited an insurrection, implied support for hanging his vice president, who threatened our democracy by repeatedly lying about the 2020 election, who is a mythomaniac, is a convicted felon, has been found guilty of sexual assault (the judge described it as rape) and so many other issues that warranted Graham’s noble transformation.

Indeed, how much more noble can you get.

Actually, we should not really be surprised. Right after Trump won his second term, Stephens asked us: “Is it time to drop the heavy moralizing and incessant doomsaying that typified much of the Never Trump movement…”  Well, Stephens was part of that movement but then, obviously, found “nobility.”

In that column, he called Trump “dishonest but authentic.”  I suppose Stephens means that is preferable to being dishonest but inauthentic.  Perhaps we should judge criminals in court, not just on the evidence, but on their authenticity.  (In an exclusive interview with us — not really — Trump denied being authentically or inauthentically dishonest).

Before recognizing the nobility of Graham’s political conversion, Stephens wrote at the end of Trump’s first term:

“[You want] want to preserve your own republican institutions? Then pay attention to the character of your leaders, the culture of governance and the political health of the public. It matters a lot more than lowering the top marginal income tax rate by a couple of percentage points.

“This is the fatal mistake of conservatives who’ve decided the best way to deal with Trump’s personality — the lying, narcissism, bullying, bigotry, crassness, name calling, ignorance, paranoia, incompetence and pettiness — is to pretend it doesn’t matter. ‘Character Doesn’t Count’ has become a de facto G.O.P. motto. ‘Virtue Doesn’t Matter’ might be another.

“But character does count, and virtue does matter, and Trump’s shortcomings prove it daily.”

Six days before the 2024 election, he even touted Democratic presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, for president over Trump, writing, “Trump is worse [than Harris] in ways that matter profoundly to the rule of law, the health of capitalism and the future of freedom at home and abroad. Conservatives who claim to care about these things should also care about what Trump may do to each of them — and, crucially, do so in the name of conservatism.”

All that was before Stephens discovered the nobility in abandoning one’s self-respect and moral values.  

Jamelle Bouie, also a political columnist for The Times, wrote the following about Graham in his piece next to the one by Stephens:

“It is one thing to go with the flow — Graham was a politician, after all — but it is something else entirely to throw caution to the wind and embrace a man you denounced, just months earlier, as inimical to your basic values — a man who was as unfit for the presidency on January 20, 2017 as he was on January 19, 2017.  

“For someone as eager for rank as Graham, the temptation of power — of real influence over the new administration — was too much to resist. When it came time to choose between his career and his values, Graham chose Trump, and it would define the rest of his life.

Bouie continued: Graham was a man “who lacked both the political strength and the moral character to resist a malign force, a man who chose to join that force and its assault on American democracy rather than resist it.”

We learned exclusively that Mrs. Stephens hid her husband’s column from their children while secretly had them read Bouie’s.
————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.

Butzel attorney and shareholder Mitchell (“Mitch”) Zajac will be featured during a webinar titled, “Tariffs Aren’t Going Away: The Procurement Playbook for the New Trade Era” presented by LightSource on Tuesday, July 14. 

The courts struck down the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs and roughly $170B in duties are moving back toward importers. Some may interpret it to mean the tariff era is ending – it  isn’t. Notably, Section 232, 301, and the new 122 surcharge all survived. Elevated tariffs are the baseline now – and refunds hinge on deadlines and documentation, not on who overpaid. Most entries won’t be refunded automatically. 

During the webinar, Zajac will break down where things stand and LightSource CEO Spencer Penn will frame what it means for the sourcing decisions businesses are making right now. 

Zajac’s legal practice includes a focus on automotive, intellectual property, regulatory and emissions compliance. He has experience in commercial litigation, transactional matters, counseling, and negotiating successful resolutions in a variety of sectors, for large corporations and entities of all sizes. 

His experience is comprised of commercial automotive advising, including supply chain disputes for light-duty, commercial vehicle, after-market, and remanufacturing suppliers; non-disclosure, joint-development, and public-private-partnership agreements in a variety of industries, including automotive, defense, and construction; product warranty and cost-recovery; product safety and compliance; emissions certification and compliance; international trade and customs, including United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) matters, Section 301 China tariffs, and Section 232 steel and aluminum, and IEEPA tariffs; and e-discovery.

Before joining Butzel, Zajac was an engineer at a Detroit Three automaker. In this role, he was an advocate for progress and change in a variety of functions, including powertrain and engine systems design and development; design and development engineering, including customer sourcing, quality, and design; international program, supply chain, and manufacturing management, including responsibility for vehicle chief engineering, product planning and branding, two global manufacturing facilities, supply chain management and customs. 

In addition, Lex Mundi recently recognized Butzel as the recipient of the Lex Mundi Equisphere® Deal of the Year Award at the Lex Mundi Annual Conference in Vienna, Austria, recognizing a multi-jurisdictional matter led by a member firm. Butzel is the exclusive member firm in Michigan for Lex Mundi.

Butzel represented Altimetrik Corp., an AI and digital engineering firm, in a multi-jurisdictional transaction in which TPG, a leading global alternative asset firm, acquired a majority stake in Altimetrik and its global subsidiaries. The matter included a complex merger involving hundreds of shareholders and option holders across jurisdictions, which was followed by a significant acquisition to further support Altimetrik’s long-term growth and global structure. 

Butzel lead attorneys included Nicholas J. Stasevich and Jennifer E. Consiglio. Other team members included Arthur Dudley II, Laura A. Johnson, Justin G. Klimko, Lynn McGuire, Shanika A. Owens and Daniel Soleimani. Paralegal Jeanne Balint assisted the team as well.

The transaction required close coordination with 15 Lex Mundi member firms worldwide.

•            •            •

Suzy Siegle, president and CEO of Walsh College, has been named a DBusiness Magazine 2026 Powered by Women Honoree. 

Siegle, who currently serves as Walsh College’s ninth president and CEO, earned a bachelor’s degree, an MBA, a law degree, and a doctorate in higher education leadership and management, with her dissertation focused on alternative and innovative operating models for 21st century higher education. 

Siegle is a Society of Human Resources Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP), a certified executive coach through the Center for Executive Coaching and earned certifications in AI for Business Strategy from MIT Sloan, Augmented Reality through Columbia Executive Education, Applied Neuroscience & Brain Health, the Neuroscience of Learning & Development, and in Consumer Neuroscience & Neuromarketing from Copenhagen Business School.

A board member of the Detroit Economic Club, Siegle has presented at several of its Young Leader events, and is a frequent speaker for the National Management Association’s local leadership development chapter. As a SHRM Senior Certified Professional, she also has attended and presented at several HR conferences. 

Her board service and professional engagement include:

• Detroit Economic Club, board member
• The Michigan Venture Capital Association, university partner
• Entrepreneurs’ Organization- Detroit, Strategic Alliance Partner
• Advisory board, Drench LLC
•  State Bar of Michigan, member

Siegle is also an author who has written several books 

•            •            •

The law firm of Couzens Lansky, located in Farmington Hills, is pleased to announce that Karen V. Fairman has joined the firm.

Fairman is a member of the Probate & Estate Planning Section of the State Bar of Michigan.

She received a B.S. from Wayne State University and her law degree from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. She was admitted to practice in the State of Michigan in 2010.

Fairman has concentrated her legal practice in the areas of estate and trust administration by providing advice and assistance to fiduciaries. She represents clients in Probate Court proceedings of all types including will, trust and estate administration matters, guardianships, conservatorships and trust reformations. She also prosecutes and defends claims by or against Personal Representatives, Trustees, beneficiaries and other interested persons in contested estate, trust and probate matters. This includes will and trust contests, contested proceedings for guardianship and conservatorship and breach of fiduciary duty claims.

•            •            •

Varnum is pleased to announce that David Joo has joined the firm’s Business and Corporate Practice Team as a partner in the Birmingham office.

Joo focuses his practice on mergers and acquisitions, private equity transactions, and other strategic corporate matters. Fluent in Korean and English, he has experience advising on cross-border transactions involving Korean businesses and multinational companies operating in Korea. His transaction experience includes advising on complex acquisitions, joint ventures, investments, and corporate spin-offs for clients across industries such as automotive, health care, technology, financial services, and manufacturing.

Prior to joining Varnum, Joo practiced at Wall Street and Magic Circle law firms, as well as law firms in Korea. His background also includes capital markets, antitrust and competition, privacy and data security, and financial regulation and compliance matters.

Joo earned his law degree from New York University School of Law and his Bachelor of Arts in political science from the University of Michigan. He is admitted to practice in New York and is qualified as a Foreign Legal Consultant in Korea.

•            •            •

Clark Hill is pleased to announce Michael Witzke has joined the firm’s Tax & Estate Planning practice group as a member in the Birmingham office. Witzke represents clients in estate and gift tax planning, special needs planning, asset protection, charitable giving, family office services, and business succession with a focus on protecting and transferring wealth.

With a multidisciplinary background in complex wealth planning solutions, Witzke works closely with high-net-worth families, business owners, and physicians to develop strategies that align with their financial goals and long-term objectives.

Witzke is an active member of the Probate and Estate Planning Section of the State Bar of Michigan and the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan Legal Financial Network. He previously served as president of the Financial Planning Association of Michigan.

“The firm’s national reach and collaborative nature present a compelling opportunity to better serve clients with their complex planning needs,” Witzke said. “I’m excited to contribute to the continued growth of the Tax & Estate Planning practice group.”

Witzke is admitted to practice in Michigan, Illinois, and Florida and earned his law degree from Wayne State University Law School. He also holds a Retirement Planning Specialist designation from the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School.

•            •            •

Dykema recently announced that Lori McAllister, a nationally recognized insurance industry attorney, has been elected chair of the Board of Directors of the Attorneys’ Liability Assurance Society (ALAS). ALAS is the country’s largest lawyer-owned mutual insurer, providing professional liability coverage to more than 220 law firms representing approximately 84,000 attorneys nationwide, including nearly half of the Am Law 200.

McAllister has served on the ALAS Board of Directors for more than a decade and previously chaired its Audit Committee. 

McAllister is a litigator and advisor to insurers and businesses on complex litigation, regulatory matters, corporate governance, and strategic transactions. She serves as outside general counsel to organizations, advising boards of directors and audit committees on governance and risk management issues. She is also recognized for her work guiding mutual insurance company conversions under Michigan’s demutualization statute and counseling clients on significant insurance regulatory matters.

A former member of Dykema’s Executive Board, McAllister also served as the firm’s general counsel for more than a decade. She was inducted into the Michigan Insurance Hall of Fame in 2021 and has been repeatedly ranked by Chambers USA as a leading lawyer in Insurance. She is also regularly recognized by The Best Lawyers in America, including being named “Lawyer of the Year” multiple times.

•            •            •

McDonald Hopkins is proud to announce that several of its attorneys have been recognized in the 2026 Legal 500 US City Elite rankings.  In Detroit, attorneys John Benko and Michael Latiff were ranked.

•            •            •

Honigman was recently recognized at Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s inaugural Legal Innovation awards event.  The firm was presented with the “Best Use of AI in Legal Services” honor for utilizing AI to enhance firm efficiency and yield beneficial client outcomes.

By Mikhail Murshak

Injunctions, Innovation, and the Problem We Can’t Price

There is a shift happening in patent law, but its real impact will not be felt in policy statements ... it will be felt in federal courtrooms.

Recently, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a Statement of Interest in Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., reinforcing a principle that has quietly eroded over time: a patent is a right to exclude, and injunctions are central to that right.

At first glance, that sounds obvious, patents have always been framed this way. But in practice, particularly over the last fifteen years, that right has softened. For many patent owners, the realistic outcome of enforcement has not been exclusion, it has been compensation.

This latest filing suggests a course correction and with that correction comes a harder question: who should actually have the power to shut down a competing product?

The Legal Foundation: The Right to Exclude

The statutory framework is clear. Under 35 U.S.C. § 283, courts “may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent.” That right, traces directly to the Constitution, which empowers Congress to grant inventors exclusive rights to promote the progress of science and useful arts. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.

“[The Congress shall have Power ... ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

The government’s recent filing reinforces that patents are not merely economic instruments. They are property rights with exclusionary force. That framing matters because in litigation, how a right is characterized often dictates the remedy that follows.

The eBay Framework and the Shift That Followed

Modern injunction analysis is governed by eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006). In eBay, the Supreme Court rejected both automatic injunctions and categorical denials. Instead, it imposed a four-factor equitable test:

• Irreparable harm
• Inadequacy of monetary damages
• Balance of hardships
• Public interest

That decision reshaped patent litigation. In theory, it restored balance and in practice, it often shifted outcomes toward damages. Over time, courts became more hesitant to grant injunctions, and operating companies became more comfortable treating infringement as a manageable risk.

The result is what many now describe as efficient infringement where the question is not “Can we do this?” but “What will it cost if we do?” The DOJ and USPTO appear to be pushing back on that dynamic.

Not All Patent Owners Are the Same

Any discussion of injunctive relief inevitably runs into the issue of non-practicing entities (NPEs). But that label hides important distinctions.

Universities, for example, are non-practicing entities. They conduct foundational research, often with federal funding and rely on licensing to bring that research to market. 
Without meaningful enforcement rights, including the possibility of injunctions, their model weakens. Why take a license early if competitors can simply use the technology and deal with damages later?

Licensing companies occupy a more nuanced middle ground. Some aggregate fragmented rights and facilitate access to innovation. Others rely more heavily on enforcement as a business model.

Then, there are patent assertion entities often labeled “trolls” that raise legitimate concerns. These entities may assert patents late in a product lifecycle, targeting companies after products are already deployed and redesign is costly.

Treating all of these actors the same under an injunction framework is both impractical and inconsistent with how the innovation ecosystem actually works.

The “Gotcha” Problem and Enforcement Timing

For many operating companies, patent enforcement does not feel like a predictable risk, it feels like an ambush.

A patent surfaces after a product is launched. Claim scope becomes clear only through litigation. The accused feature cannot easily be redesigned. And the assertion arrives at the moment of maximum leverage.

This creates what can fairly be described as a “gotcha” dynamic where timing, not just merit, drives outcomes. That reality complicates the equitable analysis because while the legal right may be valid, the manner in which it is asserted raises legitimate questions about fairness and market impact.

A Useful Contrast: Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)

Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) provide a helpful comparison. SEPs cover technologies necessary to comply with industry standards: Wi-Fi, 5G, USB and are typically disclosed through standard-setting organizations. Their owners generally commit to licensing on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

This creates predictability. Companies know the landscape; they can anticipate licensing obligations. And disputes are more likely to center on pricing than exclusion.

In that environment, courts are often less inclined to grant injunctions because monetary compensation is expected to be adequate. The contrast is telling: where predictability increases, the need for injunctive relief often decreases.

The Ongoing Debate: Is This About NPEs?

Some commentators have suggested that the DOJ/USPTO filing places a “thumb on the scale” in favor of non-practicing patentees—particularly those who rely on enforcement rather than commercialization. (See e.g., USPTO and DOJ Statement of Interest in Collision Communications: Another Thumb on the Scale in Favor of NPE Patent Plaintiffs; Rich, Joshua, March 5, 2026, PatentDocs.org).

That concern is not without merit. Strengthening the availability of injunctive relief increases leverage. And leverage can be used in ways that feel disconnected from innovation in the traditional sense.

But focusing solely on NPEs risks missing the deeper issue. The concern about NPE leverage is real but it may be a symptom, not the cause.

The Valuation Problem That Nobody Wants to Solve

At the center of this debate is a more fundamental problem: we do not have a reliable way to value patents. Patent damages are built on hypothetical negotiations, what willing parties would have agreed to in a world that never actually existed.

Courts and experts construct models. Assumptions are layered on assumptions. Outcomes vary widely. And everyone involved, patentee, defendant, expert, and judge, knows that the number, at best, is an approximation.

That creates a structural tension within the eBay framework. If monetary damages cannot be calculated with confidence, how can courts conclude they are “adequate”? And if they are not adequate, the logic begins to tilt toward injunction.

Which raises an uncomfortable question: are we relying more heavily on injunctive relief not because harm is truly irreparable but because valuation is inherently uncertain?

Irreparable Harm and Doctrinal Drift

Under eBay, irreparable harm is supposed to be specific and demonstrable. But in practice, arguments have expanded to include:

• Loss of market position
• Competitive disadvantage
• Uncertainty in future licensing
• Difficulty in quantifying harm

At some point, the line begins to blur. Irreparable harm risks becoming less about the nature of the injury and more about the limits of economic modeling. If that happens, the system begins to drift toward something eBay rejected: a soft presumption of injunction.

Litigation Implications Going Forward

If courts take the DOJ/USPTO signal seriously, we are likely to see changes in how cases are litigated. Plaintiffs will focus more heavily on:

• Non-quantifiable harm
• Market dynamics
• Loss of control over technology

Defendants will emphasize:

• Lack of notice
• Predictability
• Timing of enforcement

And courts will likely respond by crafting more nuanced remedies, tailored injunctions, delayed enforcement, or structured licensing opportunities.

Let’s call it what it is: we built a system that demands precision in valuing innovation—while dealing with assets that resist precision. Now courts are being asked to choose between two imperfect tools:

• Monetary damages that are inherently uncertain
• Injunctive relief that can reshape markets

The DOJ and USPTO are not trying to empower any particular class of patent holder. They are trying to restore credibility to the right to exclude. But once that right is strengthened, it applies across the board.

Closing Thoughts

The Constitution did not promise inventors a royalty, it promised them: an exclusive right. The challenge now is ensuring that right:

• Rewards innovation,
• Supports competition,
• And does not become a tool for strategic surprise

Maybe the real issue isn’t injunctions at all. Maybe it’s that we never solved the problem of valuing innovation with the level of certainty the law demands.

And now, faced with that uncertainty, courts are being asked to choose between imperfect math, and market exclusion. As courts grapple with uncertain patent valuation, injunctions are regaining relevance. 
————————
Mikhail “Mike” Murshak is a licensed patent attorney and experienced Intellectual Property (IP) attorney at Foster, Swift, Collins, & Smith PC.  He specializes in patent, trademark strategy and acquisition, and general IP and business counseling including preparation, prosecution, and licensing.