We find what’s stolen.
We prove it holds.

Every investigation begins with a forensic acquisition protocol that mirrors federal evidence standards before a single file is copied. Our analysts use write-blocked imaging tools, generate SHA-256 hash verifications at point of collection, and maintain a timestamped custody log that records every access event from initial seizure through final delivery to counsel. In 94% of cases where opposing counsel challenged our collection methodology, the challenge was dismissed at the pre-trial conference stage.

The custody package Trace delivers includes a signed declaration from the collecting analyst, the full hash verification chain, server-log extracts authenticating the source environment, and a forensic examiner report formatted to meet the authentication requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(9). When your expert takes the stand, the foundation is already laid — every exhibit pre-numbered, every access event documented, every gap opposing counsel might probe already closed.

Counterfeiting operations don’t respect jurisdictional lines, and neither does our investigative infrastructure. Trace maintains active monitoring relationships across 19 jurisdictions — including the EU, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, and Southeast Asian manufacturing corridors — with in-country investigators who understand local evidentiary rules, customs enforcement channels, and the specific IP treaties that govern cross-border seizure requests.

When we identify infringement that spans multiple countries, we build a coordinated evidence package designed to support simultaneous enforcement actions rather than sequential ones. In a 2024 pharmaceutical trademark case, Trace delivered coordinated evidence packages to counsel in four jurisdictions within 11 days of initial engagement, enabling a synchronized TRO filing that prevented the infringing manufacturer from shifting operations before seizure orders could be executed.

Our 97.3% evidence admissibility rate across 340 federal matters since 2018 is the answer to that question. But the methodology behind it matters more than the number: every Trace analyst who will testify holds either a Certified Computer Examiner (CCE) or Certified Forensic Computer Examiner (CFCE) credential, and our analytical reports are structured to address the four Daubert factors explicitly — testable methodology, peer review, known error rate, and general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.

We prepare analysts for deposition before cases go to trial. Our pre-deposition protocol includes a mock cross-examination by outside counsel experienced in Daubert challenges, a written technical review of the report by a second credentialed examiner, and a plain-language translation document that allows non-technical jurors to follow the chain of inference without losing the forensic precision that makes the evidence hold. Zero Daubert exclusions in the last 18 months.

Active infringement is an active loss event. Trace maintains a standing rapid-response team that can initiate evidence collection within 48 hours of engagement for domestic matters, and within 72 hours for international cases requiring in-country coordination. The engagement process is intentionally lean: a single NDA, a one-page scope authorization, and a direct call with the lead investigator assigned to your matter.

We do not route new engagements through a business development process that takes a week to clear. General counsel who have engaged Trace in an active infringement emergency consistently report that the time from first contact to investigator on the ground is shorter than the time it takes their own IT department to pull internal logs. Speed without methodology is reckless; methodology without speed is malpractice. We deliver both.

E-discovery collects what the producing party provides. Trace collects what the infringing party doesn’t know we’ve found. Our investigators use open-source intelligence, undercover purchase operations, supply chain infiltration, and dark-web monitoring to surface evidence that never appears in a standard discovery request — because the infringer doesn’t know it exists or doesn’t believe it can be authenticated. In 61% of our engagements, the most damaging evidence in the final package was material the client’s in-house team had not previously identified.

The difference is investigative posture. E-discovery is reactive — it responds to what’s been asked for. Trace is anticipatory — we build the evidence the other side hoped would never be found. That posture is why our clients’ cases settle at 3.2× the rate of industry average before trial, and why, when they go to trial, they win.