UJGUQF-15-M Intellectual Property Assignment 1 Brief 2025/26 | UWE Bristol

Module name

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Module code

UJGUQF-15-M

Assessment name

WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT

Assessment task reference

1

Module intended learning outcomes being assessed

1. A critical understanding of the international legal principles (including US and European) and concepts relating to intellectual property, in particular an appreciation of the justifications for intellectual property.

2. A critical understanding of the global, regional and national regulation of intellectual property in particular in relation to the opportunities and difficulties of harmonisation.

3. An ability to locate and understand both international and national legal instruments and mechanisms relevant to intellectual property.

4. An ability to critically evaluate international intellectual property law in relation to its wider context, in particular in the context of globalisation, the protection of human rights and sustainable development.

5. An ability to discuss and critically evaluate the effectiveness of the regulatory schemes to extend intellectual property protection to new technology.

6. A critical understanding of research approaches and techniques used in the analysis of topical problems relating to international intellectual property law, focusing specifically on new technology and the digital environment, and drawing on different legal traditions.

Assessment deadline

1400 on Tuesday 20 January 2026

48-hour late submission window applies?

Yes – for more details, please see UWE Bristol Late submission window

Marks and feedback to be returned by

19 February 2026

Assessment weighting

100%

Content limit, if applicable

2500 words

Acceptable file formats

.doc or .docx format of Microsoft Word

Please save your work using a recent version of Word, as is installed on University computers.

Formatting requirements

Times New Roman or Arial, 1.5 spacing

The first page of your coursework must include:

• Your student number
• The module name and number
• Your word count
• The coursework question or title
• A declaration as follows:

Has this assessment been created or completed with the use of an AI tool:

☐ No

☐ Yes

If yes – please read the following carefully:

I declare that I have used a generative AI tool (indicate which one here) in the creation of my submission. The extent to which I have used this tool includes (tick relevant boxes):

• Generating / creating a structure;
• Research including case law and / or statutory provisions;
• Proofreading my work for consistency and/or grammatical clarity;
• Other (please specify):

While I have used an AI tool in my submission, the substance of this work is mine and I have cross-referenced and verified all sources to which my work refers. By making a false declaration, including failure to verify my sources, I realise that my work may be referred for a suspected assessment offence in line with the UWE’s Misconduct Policy.

Referencing requirements

OSCOLA for all LLM modules

Specific resources which may help you complete this assessment

Workshop worksheets, materials on Blackboard, books and journal articles outlined in the reading lists.

Good Scholarship Requirements

When submitting your work, you will be required to confirm that the work is your own (or that of your group, if assessed as group work), and that it has been submitted following the principles of academic integrity.

This also includes following the guidance on the use of generative AI. Good practice requires that you understand what you use it for and that you acknowledge its use appropriately in your references. Guidance on the referencing of generative AI-produced material/ideas can be found here.

Good scholarship also requires that you do not commit an assessment offence. Common assessment offences on this module include:

• Plagiarism
• Collusion
• Fabrication
• Falsification

There is extensive advice on how to prepare for assessments and to avoid offences on UWE’s Study Skills Preparing for Assessments.

Criterion

Failed attempt qualities

(0 – 49%)

Pass qualities

(50 - 59%)

Merit

qualities

(60 – 69%)

Distinction

Excellent attempt qualities

(70 – 84%)

Distinction

Outstanding attempt qualities

(85%+)

Ability to clearly and accurately identify key concepts and legal issues relevant to the question

Parameters of the task are not properly identified, and there are significant errors in accuracy

Very limited knowledge and understanding of law demonstrated

Parameters of the task (legal and contextual) are identified in a generally correct manner, though there are some minor errors in accuracy

The core issue(s) is/are prioritised

Topics are addressed with some degree of clarity and accuracy

Parameters of the task (legal and contextual) are identified in a largely correct manner. The core issue(s) is/are prioritised

Topics are duly addressed with a good degree of clarity and accuracy

Parameters of the task (legal and contextual) are identified in a fundamentally correct manner

The core issue(s) is/are prioritised and the rationale for doing so is clear.

Topics are duly addressed with an excellent degree of clarity and accuracy

Parameters of the task (legal and contextual) are clearly and accurately identified

The core issue(s) is/are prioritised and the rationale for doing so is explicitly clear

Topics are comprehensively addressed with an unquestionable degree of clarity and accuracy

Understanding and accuracy of legal content (inc. creativity and originality)

Insufficient identification of relevant sources, primary and / or secondary

No relevant attempt at explaining the law; remains entirely descriptive

Able to identify some relevant sources, primary and / or secondary, though analysis is mostly descriptive

Some ability to summarise and explain the law but communication of doctrinal arguments relies heavily on quotations

Identifies relevant sources, primary and secondary, that are accurately explained and analysed

Very good ability to summarise and explain the law and communicate doctrinal arguments clearly and with a good degree of independence

Excellent identification of relevant sources, primary and secondary, that are accurately and succinctly explained and analysed

Evidences excellent ability to summarise and explain the law and communicate doctrinal arguments succinctly and with a degree of independence

Demonstration of some level of originality and creativity in understanding of legal content

Outstanding identification of relevant sources, both primary and secondary, that are accurately and succinctly explained and analysed

Unequivocal ability to summarise and explain the law and communicate doctrinal arguments succinctly and independently

Demonstration of high levels of originality and creativity in understanding of legal content

Criterion

Failed attempt qualities

(0 – 49%)

Pass qualities

(50 - 59%)

Merit

qualities

(60 – 69%)

Distinction

Excellent attempt qualities

(70 – 84%)

Distinction

Outstanding attempt qualities

(85%+)

Communication and Structure

No real ability to summarise and explain the law and communicate legal and/or policy arguments in a concise manner is demonstrated

Presentation is haphazardly structured

Introduction and/ or conclusion, if present, lack depth and/or linkage to the main arguments articulated throughout the presentation

Is generally able summarise and explain the law and communicate legal and/or policy arguments in a concise manner

Presentation is reasonably well-structured, though there are ways in which the structure could be improved

Introduction and/ or conclusion lack appropriate depth and/or linkage to the main arguments articulated throughout the presentation

Very good ability to summarise and explain the law and communicate legal and/or policy arguments succinctly

Presentation has a clear structure and includes an introduction and conclusion

Excellent ability to summarise and explain the law and communicate legal and/or policy arguments succinctly

Presentation follows a logical structure and includes a clear introduction, appropriate sub-headings and a clear and cogent conclusion

An outstanding ability to summarise and explain the law and communicate legal and/or policy arguments succinctly

Presentation follows a logical structure and includes a clear introduction, appropriate sub-headings and  offers a persuasive conclusion

Criterion

Failed attempt qualities

(0 – 49%)

Pass qualities

(50 - 59%)

Merit

qualities

(60 – 69%)

Distinction

Excellent attempt qualities

(70 – 84%)

Distinction

Outstanding attempt qualities

(85%+)

Highly complex and unpredictable scenarios

Advanced forms of communication to specialist and non-specialist audiences

Little to no evidence of interpretation and evaluation of data

No or inappropriate choice of problem-solving approach(es)

No or no effective attempt at dealing with unpredictability/unknowns/ complex matters

Solutions/arguments missing or illogical

Voice generally inappropriate for given audience

Evidence of critical analysis used to frame appropriate questions, if appropriate, (including where data is incomplete), to propose one or more appropriate solutions, although often lacking in cogency, particularly with regard to unpredictability/ unknowns or particularly complex matters

An attempt is made at communicating solutions in specialist/non-specialist forms, as required

Thorough interpretation and evaluation

Substantially sound lines of argument with 3-4 minor issues

Most unpredictability/ unknowns and particularly complex matters dealt with cogently

Communication consistent in voice form, with 1-2 errors

Thoroughly sound arguments with no issues

Unpredictability/ unknowns and all matters dealt with cogently throughout

Communication thoroughly consistent in voice form, ideal for audience

Comprehensive, critical interpretation of all matters, including the most complex and uncertain, leading to entirely cogent solutions via entirely appropriate techniques, convincingly rationalised

Communication of solutions akin to professional standards

Criterion

Failed attempt qualities

(0 – 49%)

Pass qualities

(50 - 59%)

Merit

qualities

(60 – 69%)

Distinction

Excellent attempt qualities

(70 – 84%)

Distinction

Outstanding attempt qualities

(85%+)

Academic practice (evidenced by use of supporting authority, referencing & bibliography)

Points are poorly or not at all referenced

Overreliance on paraphrasing and / or quotations

Referencing style and/ or bibliography lacks OSCOLA compliance

Source may be of questionable quality and / or are utilised in a haphazard fashion and are lacking relevance to points made

There may be evidence of Bad Academic Practice (e.g. not referencing sources/ poor paraphrasing)

Most points are referenced, though there are some minor issues with approach to referencing

Some though not all sources are paraphrased and/or quoted where appropriate, though there may be some over-reliance on quotations

Referencing style is generally OSCOLA compliant, though there may be some issues

Some assertions are supported with sources/ data, though there are some minor issues with reliability / quality

Bibliography included though not entirely OSCOLA-compliant

Most points are appropriately referenced

Some though not all sources are paraphrased and/or quoted where appropriate

Referencing style is OSCOLA compliant, though there may be some minor issues

Assertions are generally supported with up-to-date, reliable, quality sources/ data

Bibliography is generally well-presented and OSCOLA compliant

All points are appropriately referenced

Sources are paraphrased and/or quoted where appropriate

Referencing style is OSCOLA compliant

Assertions are supported with up-to-date, reliable, quality sources/ data

Bibliography is well-presented and OSCOLA compliant

All points are referenced to an exceptional standard

Sources are paraphrased and/or quoted where appropriate

Referencing style is entirely OSCOLA compliant

All assertions are supported with up-to-date, reliable, quality sources/ data

Full bibliography that is OSCOLA compliant

Criterion

Failed attempt qualities

(0 – 49%)

Pass qualities

(50 - 59%)

Merit

qualities

(60 – 69%)

Distinction

Excellent attempt qualities

(70 – 84%)

Distinction

Outstanding attempt qualities

(85%+)

Critical analysis, evaluation and synthesis

No real attempt to identify complexity and uncertainty in the law, to examine and appraise the comparative merits of different legal arguments advanced by others

No evidence of wider reading

No reference to primary or secondary legal sources/ reference to sources lacks any degree of accuracy

Some attempt to identify complexity and uncertainty in the law, to examine and appraise the comparative merits of different legal arguments advanced by others (evidence of limited wider reading) assess proposals for reform, and to recognise contextual arguments relevant to the question(s)

Demonstrates a very good ability to identify complexity and uncertainty in the law, to examine and appraise the comparative merits of different legal arguments advanced by others (some evidence of wider reading) assess proposals for reform, and to recognise contextual arguments relevant to the question(s)

Demonstrates a strong ability to identify complexity and uncertainty in the law, to examine and appraise the comparative merits of different legal arguments advanced by others (evidence of wider reading) assess proposals for reform, and to recognise contextual arguments relevant to the question(s)

Evidences an ability to independently appraise the knowledge base in order to identify new problems or areas for investigation, develop new perspectives or solutions for existing legal problems

Demonstrates an outstanding ability to identify complexity and uncertainty in the law, to examine and appraise the comparative merits of different legal arguments advanced by others (strong evidence of wider reading) assess proposals for reform, and to recognise contextual arguments relevant to the question(s)

Evidences an outstanding ability to independently and robustly appraise the knowledge base in order to identify new problems or areas for investigation, develop new perspectives or solutions for existing legal problems

Criterion

Failed attempt qualities

(0 – 49%)

Pass qualities

(50 - 59%)

Merit

qualities

(60 – 69%)

Distinction

Excellent attempt qualities

(70 – 84%)

Distinction

Outstanding attempt qualities

(85%+)

Taking responsibility for own learning

Capacity for reflection on learning and the effective use of feedback

No reflective model, selection of an inappropriate model, or no real use of identified model

Commentary lacking in criticality; no evidence of consideration of transformation (if any) of performance/experience

Little relevant evidence underpinning analysis

Suggestions of next steps not clearly linked to earlier commentary  

Little demonstration of learning

Cogently rationalised choice of reflective model at forefront of discipline, somewhat comprehensively and accurately employed

Analysis of performance/experience present, engaging appropriate/relevant skills/ experience, mostly supported by evidence, and some scholarship

Suggestions on next steps for all identified gaps

Commentary demonstrates learning

Cogent explanation for choice of model

Significant evidence of scholarship, furthering reflections

Next steps wholly appropriate

Significant evidence of understanding of limits of knowledge

Commentary demonstrates thorough, deep, critical learning together with an ability to plan own development

Multiple models may be discussed, demonstrating criticality

Systematic integration of reflections with next steps plan

Cogent exposition of limits of knowledge and impact on reflection and personal development planning

Some demonstration of personal responsibility in own learning

Highly critical reflective commentary

Extensive demonstration of personal responsibility in own learning

Qualities for pass, merit, excellent and outstanding distinction classifications include all lower classification-qualities, except where there are inconsistencies in which case the higher classification description replaces the lower classification description for that criterion.

The marking criteria above are intended to give guidance on the major considerations taken into account for each criterion.  It is not comprehensive nor authoritative, and markers will assess against academic ‘norms’ and using their academic judgement.  Achievement of a classification’s component does not automatically result in achievement of that classification, nor does failure to meet one or more component.

Note that unless specifically indicated otherwise in the assessment brief, your overall mark is not a simple arithmetical result of the classification selections made above.  Particularly mark-worthy material will be generously rewarded and particularly problematic material (e.g.  poor academic practice in relation to referencing; English which is incomprehensible) may incur a significant mark penalty.