Virtuoso Legal Limited

Elizabeth Ward founded Virtuoso Legal in 2007. Her decision to do so was informed by her experience in large law firms such as those listed above, where she developed expertise in IP – but also observed what she saw as sub-standard service to IP as an area of law, as well as a stuffy, exploitative business structure which was and generally remains pervasive in some larger law firms. Virtuoso Legal was set up with a female leadership team, and in its functional aspect has sought to subvert expectations around law firms in general by dispensing with overt formality and focusing resources instead on identifying and securing client goals through specialist practice. As a result of the above, Virtuoso Legal, under the stewardship of Elizabeth Ward has secured a number of notable results for clients, and in certain cases, securing results against much larger law firms. These are typically achieved Invista v. Videra – Virtuoso Legal client, Videra was a start-up company led by ex-Invista head research scientist Adriana Botes and her partner Robin Mitra. Invista, an international biotech conglomerate behind Lycra sought to stop Videra from operating, on restrictive covenants and confidentiality grounds. Invista instructed Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, an American super-firm, who are estimated to have spent >£3million in legal costs, compared to £800,000 amassed from modestly-sized Virtuoso Legal. Videra were found non-liable on all counts and received costs of £500,000 from the other side. Argos UK v. Argos US – Virtuoso Legal client, Argos US, a CAD construction registered “www.argos.com” in the mid 90s. Argos UK brought a claim against Argos US for trade mark infringement alleging that the domain, through Google AdSense advertising was targeting an audience in the UK. A claim that went through the High Court, Court of Appeal and eventually to a Supreme Court refusal in favour of our client who still retains the domain name.. 20th Century Fox v. Cyclone Theatres – Cyclone Theatres and the associated parties had, despite the warning, exhibited a performance containing material from the film “The Greatest Showman”, whilst it was being exhibited in cinemas. The small Welsh theatre and associated parties received an 8-figure High Court claim. The Virtuoso Legal team managed to transfer the claim to a lower-level court, where the a settlement was made limited to a 5-figure sum. thebigword v. Language Empire – Cybersquatting case where an international translation, interpretation and associated services provider found a regional competitor cybersquatting a domain using their trade marked brand name and using infringing brand on the page itself to seemingly divert traffic and revenue. Virtuoso Legal client thebigword, received record costs and damages in the IPEC (Intellectual Property Enterprise Court). Glencairn Holdings v. Product Specialities Inc. – A case brought against Virtuoso Legal client Product Specialities, seeking to limit them from instructing the firm as a distinct team within Virtuoso Legal had secured a confidential settlement for a previous client. In essence, the claim sought to assert that a small firm could not succeed in deploying effective information barriers internally, but in doing so implied a preference for Virtuoso Legal not to represent a defendant against them-. Our client Product Specialities won this claim, and after being represented by Virtuoso Legal in a subsequent claim received a confidential settlement in relation to the claim brought against them. In addition to this, the firm is listed yearly in both the Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 directories – in essence, ranking them internationally in the top 1% of law firms globally. Virtuoso Legal attribute these successes and those ongoing to the firm's approach to client work. Often cited as a partner in their success the firm works closely to clients' commercial goals ensuring their success and growth for years to come.