This assessment task will consist of 10 multiple choice questions and will assess topics covered in weeks 1 to 3.

Understanding of the different IP regimes and their basic features - 40%

Understanding of the the nature and scope of copyright law - 30%

Understanding of the nature and scope of patent law - 30%

This assessment will examine student's knowledge of selected topics covered up to Week 6 and it will be based on a hypothetical problem scenario. You will be required to address legal problems on IP protection with the aid of primary and secondary legal sources. See further detailed information to be released on Moodle under the Assessment tile.

***PLEASE NOTE: this assessment is designed to develop your understanding of the various IP rights as well as your critical thinking and analytical skills in applying them to a real-world situation. Accordingly, students MUST NOT use GENERATIVE AI in completing this assessment and its associated research tasks.

Note that the lecturer runs all assessment questions through generative AI and knows how it will respond, including hallucinations and fake case names/citations. In addition, Turnitin will likely be able to detect AI usage. (Yes, I'm serious about the "no AI usage" in this unit).

If you are found to have used AI in your assessment piece, it will be graded at ZERO.

CRITERIA:
This assessment (30 marks, 30% of your grade) will be assessed according to the following criteria:

- quality of the statement of the legal issue(s) and rules (5 marks, 5%);
- (i) correct and thorough analysis of law AND (ii) application of the rules and legal principles to the legal issue(s) (15 marks, 15%);
- well thought-out conclusion (5 marks, 5%), and
- quality of the communication/language usage and observance of proper structure, format, and instructions (5 marks, 5%).

See the below rubric:

Final research paper (min 2000, max 2200 words, exclusive of footnotes).

In this unit, you will encounter some complex subject matter which will hopefully inspire your research curiosity. For this final piece of assessment, you have 4 options:

1. Design your own assessment:

The second half of the unit material in particular is designed to get you thinking about entrepreneurship, government innovation policy and commercialisation. The material is deliberately provocative to get you thinking about your own views and opinions on the subject matter. You are encouraged to pursue your own individual research interests within the bounds of the second half of the unit material (it may straddle the first half of unit material (IP rights) but with the emphasis on a policy or commercialisation issue). You may develop your own, unique research question to pursue in consultation with the Unit Coordinator, who will be able to provide you with assistance in scoping your research question appropriately for the task.

If you decide to develop your own research question to write on, you must have emailed your paper proposal to Unit Coordinator for approval by the end of week 5. Your paper proposal must demonstrate that you have considered the following issues in order to submit the paper on time and in a well-researched manner:

1. What is the research question or problem that you wish to write about? Clearly define the research problem and how you want to address it;
2. Why do you want to research this issue? You should show that you have at least conducted a preliminary review of the literature to demonstrate that it is a research question worthy of study.
3. How are you going to do it? You should show that you have a defined schedule for your literature review that is achievable, to allow time for the write-up of your paper and submission by the due date.

OR If you do NOT wish to develop your own research question to write on, you must submit a final individual paper on only ONE of the following topics:

2. Present a critical analysis: Critically analyze the differing approaches of the Australian and German courts in designating the inventorship of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated inventions in the Thaler series of test cases. In your analysis, consider the implications of the most recent German approach in allowing Stephen Thaler to be named as an inventor, despite the AI machine purportedly being the actual creator. In light of these considerations, discuss whether the current frameworks in both jurisdictions adequately address the challenges posed by AI-generated inventions and whether reform is needed to adequately incentivise the creation of patentable inventions and their effective commercialisation.

(For this assignment, you will need to read the following in the Thaler (DABUS) series of test cases: Australian Federal Court decision, Full Federal Court decision, and High Court transcript refusing special leave to appeal to the High Court. You will also need to read the German Federal Patent Court and Federal Court of Justice decisions. I would also highly recommend Dan Burk's article and Daria Kim's articles, and a UK report, which will be posted to Moodle. To augment these resources, you will also need to do your own independent research so that you can show a commanding understanding of the field of patent law and, in particular, the requirement to designate the name of an inventor and how this impacts on commercialisation. Remember, your aim here is to critically analyse the cases, not just tell me what they said - ask yourself questions such as 'Are they right? Are there gaps? Are they wrong? Do we need further reform? Are patents even needed to inspire AI inventiveness or for effective commercialisation?').

OR

3. Argue a proposition: "The Australian government has a historically poor track record in innovation policy-making." Discuss, including a policy example such as the National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA) and/or the IP Toolkit.

(Here, you will need to draw on your knowledge gained in this unit (particularly in the latter half) to take a stand for or against the proposition and present a compelling argument with a policy example justifying your position. You will need to critically evaluate and discuss the history of innovation policy in this country, citing specific initiatives such as the NISA and/or the IP Toolkit. I have written published articles on both of these which are linked in the unit materials. You will need to also support your work with appropriate independent research, citing policy, and commentary in articles, reports, books, etc).

OR

4. Answer a problem-based question: Your clients are three academics who have developed an exciting software invention; they have not yet considered any IP protection. The university has been approached by a large US company to discuss a potential buy-out, although the academics still want to keep researching on the invention. They also want to talk about the invention to a learned society's seminar. Advise the academics (citing appropriate research, such as legislation, case law, articles, reports, books, etc) regarding:
- any IP protections they will need to put in place and cautions they will need to exercise,
- how to structure their commercialisation activities with an appropriate business model, and
- the salient factors they will need to take into account when arriving at any potential licensing terms.

(Note, if you choose this topic, you may cite the study guide(s) if necessary - but you MUST also show evidence of independent research, particularly a commanding understanding of the principles and/or case law that is involved in answering these practical questions. This topic is not designed to be 'light on' with independent research given that you will have had 12 weeks to prepare for it. As with the other topics, I will be looking for evidence of you having developed a critical insight into the issues and your own 'voice' in respect of same).

***PLEASE NOTE: this assessment is designed to develop your critical thinking and analytical skills, so students MUST NOT use GENERATIVE AI in completing this assessment and its associated research tasks. Any assessment found to have been using AI will be graded at ZERO.

To counter the potential unauthorised use of generative AI LLM models such as ChatGPT and Copilot, ALL students MUST submit a REFLECTIVE RESEARCH DIARY with this assessment to indicate (1) the resources they have consulted, (2) dates the resources were consulted, and (3) how the resources developed their thinking in the assessment. To avoid any doubt, a document with a TABLE including the following must be copied and pasted at the end of the student's final assignment:

(1) resources utilised in the assessment (designate all resources, including articles, website URLs, videos, etc. If you have referred to a resource in your work, it must be included here in the table),

(2) date(s) that the resources were consulted, and

(3) brief notes/reflection on how the resources were influential on the arguments presented in the student's final assignment. THIS IS MANDATORY, if I cannot tell how you developed your thinking in this assignment with the use of the resources, then the diary will NOT be sufficient and you will receive a grade of ZERO. A simple list of resources resembling a bibliography is NOT acceptable. This reflective research diary requirement is not difficult: as you are researching, keep your reflective diary document open, and jot down your resources as you gather them. As you then read through the resources, make notes in your diary about what you're thinking and how it is impacting on your critical analysis of the topic you've chosen. See further the rubric below. The diary attracts 10 marks or 10% of your final grade. See further the rubric below.

Pedagogically, there are good reasons - apart from reducing the risk of AI usage - for requiring you to do a reflective research diary or memorandum. These are often required for larger research projects, and will be required if you go on to do postgraduate research. So, it's a great idea to start getting into the habit of doing one "as you go" with your research now.

Note that the lecturer has already run these assessment questions through generative AI and knows how it will respond. In addition, Turnitin will likely be able to detect AI usage. (Yes, as you can gather, I'm serious about the "no AI usage" in this unit).