1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |DOJ Appoints New Prosecutors and FBI Agents to Fight IP Crime

DOJ Appoints New Prosecutors and FBI Agents to Fight IP Crime

Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.27.10

On April 26, 2010, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") announced the appointment of 15 new Assistant United States Attorneys and 20 FBI Special Agents to "aggressively" pursue domestic and international intellectual property crimes. The announcement reflects the DOJ's continued focus on IP crimes, following the establishment earlier this year of the DOJ's Task Force on Intellectual Property, after Vice President Biden's summit on intellectual property rights. In short, the DOJ is not simply declaring that IP crimes are a priority – it is devoting significant time and resources to the prosecution of IP crimes such as trade secrets theft, computer hacking, piracy and counterfeiting.

In making the announcement, Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary G. Grindler, chair of the DOJ's Task Force on Intellectual Property, reassured companies and intellectual property rights holders in the United States that the increase in enforcement personnel is part of the government's commitment to "remain ever vigilant . . . as American entrepreneurs and businesses continue to develop, innovate and create." This reassurance comes at a time when businesses must be increasingly vigilant in thwarting attempts to compromise their intellectual property by means of sophisticated schemes and high-tech tools, and must be prepared to aggressively assert their rights when victimized. The DOJ consistently encourages companies and other IP rights holders to refer cases of suspected IP crimes to the government, which can be an effective complement to civil litigation. By the same token, in this heightened enforcement environment, companies must work with counsel to ensure that they themselves do not become unwitting perpetrators of IP crimes while conducting otherwise routine business affairs, such as hiring new employees from a competitor or gathering competitive intelligence.

The new Assistant U.S. Attorney positions are located within districts across the country, including California, New York, and Washington, D.C. In addition, the new FBI Special Agents are assigned to four intellectual property squads, also located in California, New York and Washington, D.C. Crowell & Moring's offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York and Washington, D.C., along with its deep benches of Intellectual Property and White Collar and Regulatory Enforcement attorneys, are well placed to assist clients in both the defensive and offensive aspects of the evolving IP enforcement landscape.

For the DOJ release, go to:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/April/10-dag-480.html

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights