USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Assessment Brief
LLM583 Intellectual Property Law
Academic Year
2022-2023
Semester
One
Module Number
LLM583
Module Title
Intellectual Property Law
Assessment Method
Coursework (Component 2)
Deadline (time and date)
13 December 2022, 1.00 pm
Submission
Word Limit
(see Assessment Word Limit Statement)
Module Co-ordinator
Assessment Dropbox in the Module Study Area in
CampusMoodle.
2500
Thorsten Lauterbach
What Learning Outcomes will I achieve by successfully completing this assessment?
1.
Critically evaluate the impact of digital technology on IP law
2.
Compare and contract different regulatory regimes and their underlying policy objectives
3.
Appraise the influence of the EU on national IP law regimes
What knowledge and/or skills will I develop by undertaking the assessment?
You will develop a critical understanding of specific aspects of Intellectual Property law based on which
task you choose as your assessment. Applying an analytical and critical approach based on a thorough
research effort that includes statutory provisions, court decisions and scholarly literature in the foundation
common to all three tasks.
The tasks seek to develop a range of skills:
– the way you set the scene/introduce your research to set out which objectives your work pursues with
clarity alongside an outline of the structure of your discussion
– the quality of your work’s content (focus and correctness of investigation & analysis; up to date/currency
of your discussion)
Date created: May 2022
Version: 1
What Learning Outcomes will I achieve by successfully completing this assessment?
– the quality of your work’s communication & presentation (structure, clarity of your written
communication, taking pride in the look and feel of your academic output)
– the quality and maturity of your research skills (range and use of authoritative source materials &
referencing based on the OSCOLA standard)
What is expected of me in this assessment?
Task(s) – content
You are encouraged to directly address the task of your choice in a logical, coherent and well-structured
way. Your work should be consistently referenced by the OSCOLA standard and robustly researched.
You are expected to build upon the content discussed within the second half of the module and, with
reference to your independent reading and research, apply your understanding to the legal issues your topic
raises.
Make sure you proof-read your final masterpiece to eradicate any typographical, grammatical and syntactical
errors before you submit it: demonstrate pride in your academic output, as these types of avoidable mishaps
tend to take the shine off the effort you have put into its composition!
Task(s) – format
You should write in prose, with your coursework containing an introduction, main body and conclusion and
a bibliography. The specific sections and content of the coursework is to be determined by you; however it
should be well-presented and written.
Make sure you invest some time in composing all aspects of your work:
–
Word space comes is limited, so there is no place for long-winded sentences and lengthy
description. Instead, you need to make every word counts and compose your narrative succinctly
–
Remember that your work is considered by an informed audience familiar with IP law. There is no
need at all at lengthy scene-setting and generic explanation. Instead, cut to the chase and drive some real
focus into your work
–
Ensure that you apply a tidy and logical structure to your discussion, and communicate your plan in
your introduction
–
Like any other academic work you produce, to have a sensible and robust research basis that consists
of authoritative sources is crucial.
Date created: May 2022
Version: 1
What is expected of me in this assessment?
How will I be graded?
A grade will be provided for each criterion on the feedback grid which is specific to the assessment. The
overall grade for the assessment will be calculated using the algorithm below.
A
At least 50% of the feedback grid to be at Grade A, at least 75% of the feedback grid to be at Grade
B or better, and normally 100% of the feedback grid to be at Grade C or better.
B
At least 50% of the feedback grid to be at Grade B or better, at least 75% of the feedback grid to be
at Grade C or better, and normally 100% of the feedback grid to be at Grade D or better.
C
At least 50% of the feedback grid to be at Grade C or better, and at least 75% of the feedback grid
to be at Grade D or better.
D
At least 50% of the feedback grid to be at Grade D or better, and at least 75% of the feedback grid
to be at Grade E or better.
E
At least 50% of the feedback grid to be at Grade E or better.
F
Failing to achieve at least 50% of the feedback grid to be at Grade E or better.
NS
Non-submission.
Date created: May 2022
Version: 1
Feedback grid
GRADE
A
B
C
D
E
DEFINITION / CRITERIA (WEIGHTING)
EXCELLENT
Outstanding
Performance
COMMENDABLE/VERY
GOOD
Meritorious
Performance
GOOD
Highly Competent
Performance
SATISFACTORY
Competent
Performance
BORDERLINE FAIL
Failure Open to
Condonement
Excellent knowledge and Very good knowledge and A good knowledge and
understanding of a
range of relevantly
range of relevantly selected satisfactory range of
selected content/theory. content/theory. The
relevantly selected
Extensive coverage of
majority of key issues
content/theory. Some of
key issues covered to a covered to a very good
the key issues have been
high level of detail.
level of detail.
covered to a good level of
detail.
F
UNSATISFACTORY
Fail
Some satisfactory
Minimal coverage of the
coverage but the
relevant content/theory
work also contains with the inclusion of
Grade:
material which is
irrelevant and/or inaccurate
irrelevant and/or
material. Most of the key
inaccurate. A
issues are missed or
number of key
misunderstood. The work is
issues are missed or well below the threshold
misunderstood. The standards.
work marginally fails
to meet the
threshold standards.
An outstanding level of A very good level of
Application/analysis/evalua Application/analysis/evalua There is limited
There is no or very limited
APPLICATION/ANALYSIS/EVALUATION application/analysis/eval application/analysis/evaluat tion is competent if limited tion is satisfactory and
evidence of
evidence of
30%
uation is identifiable. The ion is identifiable. The work in parts. The work shows a meets the threshold
application/analysis/ application/analysis/evaluat
work shows a very clear shows a clear and reasoned clear and reasoned
standard. The work shows evaluation. The work ion. The work shows no or
and reasoned
understanding of most
understanding of some
an adequate understanding shows a limited
very limited understanding
Grade:
understanding of all key aspects of the topic. The
aspects of the topic. The
of some aspects of the
understanding of
of most aspects of the
aspects of the topic.
testing of the various issues testing of the various issues topic but gaps are
important aspects of topic. The testing of various
There is excellent clarity and the development of
and the development of
identifiable. The testing of the topic. The
issues and the
in the testing of the
arguments is carried out to arguments exceeds the
various issues and the
testing of various
development of arguments
various issues and in the a high standard.
threshold standard.
development of arguments issues and the
is well below the threshold
development of
Conclusions are wellConclusions are reasonable meets the threshold
development of
standard. The conclusions
arguments. Conclusions grounded and supported but there is clear scope to standard. Conclusions are arguments fails to
reached are confused and
are well-grounded and by the available sources,
make these more robust.
reasonable but there is
achieve
not properly supported by
supported by the
although could perhaps be
clear scope to make these competence. The
the available material.
available sources.
made more robust.
more robust.
conclusions reached
are limited and
CONTENT/SUBJECT KNOWLEDGE 30% understanding of a wide understanding of a broad
Satisfactory coverage of
relevant information but
irrelevant information is
included and some key
issues are missed or
misunderstood. The work
meets the threshold
standards.
Date created: May 2022
Version: 1
GRADE
A
B
C
D
E
DEFINITION / CRITERIA (WEIGHTING)
EXCELLENT
Outstanding
Performance
COMMENDABLE/VERY
GOOD
Meritorious
Performance
GOOD
Highly Competent
Performance
SATISFACTORY
Competent
Performance
BORDERLINE FAIL
Failure Open to
Condonement
STRUCTURE, PRESENTATION AND
CLARITY OF EXPRESSION 20%
Grade:
RESEARCH AND REFERENCING 20%
Grade:
F
UNSATISFACTORY
Fail
marginally fails to
meet the threshold
standard.
Structure and
Structure and presentation Structure and presentation Structure and presentation Structure and
Structure and presentation
presentation of the work of the work is of a very
of the work is of a good
of the work meets the
presentation of the of the work fails to meet
is of an excellent
good standard. The
standard. The submission threshold standard. The
work marginally fails the threshold standard. The
standard. The
submission conforms to the conforms to the required
submission conforms to the to achieve the
submission broadly fails to
submission conforms to required specifications to a specifications to a high
required specification to a threshold standard. conform with the required
the required
very high level. Taking into level. Taking into account satisfactory level. Taking
The submission fails specifications. Taking into
specifications to a very account spelling, grammar, spelling, grammar,
into account spelling,
to conform with the account spelling, grammar,
high level. Taking into
punctuation and use of
punctuation and use of
grammar, punctuation and required
punctuation and use of
account spelling,
vocabulary the clarity of
vocabulary the clarity of
use of vocabulary, the
specifications on a vocabulary, the clarity of
grammar, punctuation
communication is well
communication is highly
clarity of communication is number of
communication is very
and use of vocabulary
above the threshold
competent.
competent if sometimes
occasions. Taking
limited and is often well
the clarity of
standard.
unclear in parts.
into account
below the threshold
communication is
spelling, grammar, standard.
excellent.
punctuation and use
of vocabulary, the
clarity of
communication
marginally fails to
achieve competence
and is often unclear
in parts.
Use of relevant material
Use of relevant material
Use of relevant
Use of relevant material is
Use of relevant material Use of relevant material
from a reasonable range of from an adequate range of material is limited
extremely limited and the
from an impressive
from a commendable range sources. Referencing shows sources. Referencing shows and marginally fails work displays no of very
range of sources.
of sources. Referencing
a good implementation of a satisfactory, if somewhat to achieve
limited success in this
Referencing shows an
shows a very good
OSCOLA requirements.
limited, implementation of competency.
regard. Referencing is very
excellent
implementation of OSCOLA
OSCOLA requirements.
Referencing is
limited or non-existent and
implementation of
requirements.
incomplete and the the implementation of
OSCOLA requirements.
implementation of OSCOLA requirements falls
OSCOLA
well below the threshold
requirements falls
standard.
Date created: May 2022
Version: 1
GRADE
A
B
C
D
E
DEFINITION / CRITERIA (WEIGHTING)
EXCELLENT
Outstanding
Performance
COMMENDABLE/VERY
GOOD
Meritorious
Performance
GOOD
Highly Competent
Performance
SATISFACTORY
Competent
Performance
BORDERLINE FAIL
Failure Open to
Condonement
just below the
threshold standards.
Coursework received late, without valid reason, will be regarded as a non-submission (NS) and one of your assessment opportunities will be lost.
Date created: May 2022
Version: 1
F
UNSATISFACTORY
Fail
What else is important to my assessment?
What is plagiarism?
“Plagiarism is the practice of presenting the thoughts, writings or other output of another or others as
original, without acknowledgement of their source(s) at the point of their use in the student’s work. All
materials including text, data, diagrams or other illustrations used to support a piece of work, whether from
a printed publication or from electronic media, should be appropriately identified and referenced and
should not normally be copied directly unless as an acknowledged quotation. Text, opinions or ideas
translated into the words of the individual student should in all cases acknowledge the original source”
(RGU 2022).
What is collusion?
“Collusion is defined as two or more people working together with the intention of deceiving another.
Within the academic environment this can occur when students work with others on an assignment, or part
of an assignment, that is intended to be completed separately“ (RGU 2022).
For further information please see Academic Integrity.
What is the Assessment Word Limit Statement?
It is important that you adhere to the Word Limit specified above. The Assessment Word Limit Statement
lists what is included and excluded from the word count, along with the penalty for exceeding the upper
limit.
What if I’m unable to submit?
•
The University operates a Fit to Sit Policy which means that if you undertake an assessment then you
are declaring yourself well enough to do so.
•
If you require an extension, you should complete and submit a Coursework Extension Form. This form is
available on the RGU Student and Applicant Forms page.
•
Further support is available from your Course Leader.
What additional support is available?
•
RGU Study Skills provide advice and guidance on academic writing, study skills, maths and statistics and
basic IT.
•
RGU Library guidance on referencing and citing.
•
The Inclusion Centre: Disability & Dyslexia.
•
Your Module Coordinator, Course Leader and designated Personal Tutor can also provide support.
Date created: May 2022
Version: 1
What else is important to my assessment?
What are the University rules on assessment?
The University Regulation ‘A4: Assessment and Recommendations of Assessment Boards‘ sets out important
information about assessment and how it is conducted across the University.
Coursework Task (Component 2)
Addressing one of the following tasks
TASK 1: Interpreting the exclusive right to communicate a work to the public
Article 3 of the EU Directive on Copyright in the Information Society (2001/29/EC) provides
owners of copyright works with a right to control the act of communicating works to the
public. The UK government implemented this aspect of the directive by means of section
20(1) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Reviewing recent court decisions by UK courts and the Court of Justice of the EU, critically
evaluate the boundaries of this right and assess whether its judicial interpretation has struck
the right balance between owners and users of copyright works, particularly in a digital
environment.
TASK 2: UK law of joint authorship in copyright
In view of the recent landmark trilogy of UK court decisions in the Martin v Kogan dispute,
critically discuss the courts’ approach to how authorial contributions by putative nondominant authors should be assessed, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Please include a
comment on the view held by some that the new interpretation of the law is too generous
which may lead to a fragmentation authorship and vexatious joint authorship claims.
TASK 3: AI as creator of IP – the end of exclusivity of protecting human endeavour?
Date created: May 2022
Version: 1
Artificial Intelligence (AI) as creative force to generate intellectual property subject matter
has recently come to dominate both national and international debate. The United Kingdom
Intellectual Property Office, for example, has just launched a public consultation on this
matter in October 2021. IP offices and courts in various jurisdictions have been asked to
determine whether AI should be regarded as “inventor” for the purposes of patent
applications. In the area of copyright law, the discussion has revolved around what
constitutes authorship and whether section 9(3) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act
1988 – regulating so-called “computer-generated works” – could be utilised to protect AI
creations.
Through investigating this current area of debate on a comparative basis (i.e. comparing
and contrasting the approaches taken in at least two, but no more than three jurisdictions),
critically discuss and evaluate the legal and policy arguments underpinning the discussion
of either
a) AI as “inventor” of patentable subject matter, or
or
b) AI as “author” of subject matter capable of protection under copyright law.
Date created: May 2022
Version: 1
