Description
Hi Omartaha, see attached materials and guidelines. let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Canadian
Intellectual Property
Office
Office de la propriété
intellectuelle
du Canada
An Agency of
Industry Canada
Un organisme
d’Industrie Canada
Office de la propriété
intellectuelle
du Canada
Canadian
Intellectual Property
Office
Un organisme
d’Industrie Canada
An Agency of
Industry Canada
AUTOPAINT
Case Study
PATENTS
INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
COPYRIGHT
TRADEMARKS
Acknowledgements
The Canadian Intellectual Property Office would
like to recognize and thank McMaster University
and the members of the Advisory Development
Team who participated to the project:
Marc Banik
Professor, Département de management et
technologie
University of Quebec at Montreal
David Jones
Assistant Professor, Electrical and Computer
Engineering
McMaster University
Nick Bontis
Associate Professor, DeGroote School of Business
McMaster University
Rafik Loutfy
Professor, Chemical Engineering
McMaster University
Eric Brown
Professor, Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences
McMaster University
Christopher J. McKenna
Dean, College of Management and Economics
University of Guelph
Tom Corr
Associate Vice President, Commercialization,
Office of Research
University of Waterloo
Marcel Mongeon
Project Manager
Mongeon Consulting Inc.
Scott Inwood
Director, IP Management Group, Office of Research
University of Waterloo
Elsie Quaite-Randall
Executive Director, Industry Liaison Office
McMaster University
Cheryl Jensen
Vice President, Technology, Apprenticeship and
Corporate Training
Mohawk College
Permission to reproduce or use
© Industry Canada, 2013. All rights reserved. No part of this information (publication or product) may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording
or otherwise, or stored in a retrieval system, without prior written permission of the Canadian Intellectual
Property Office at [email protected].
Catalogue No. Iu71-4/10-2-2013E
ISBN 978-1-100-21704-8
Revised edition: April 2013
Case Study
AutoPaint
Don’t assume you have all the rights
Frank Papadrovic has led what many would refer to as a challenging life. Since immigrating as a refugee
to Canada eight years ago, he has been trying to find his “niche” in the Canadian art world. In his former
country, Frank had been a successful high-end art dealer frequently selling pieces that were worth tens if
not hundreds of thousands of dollars. From such sales he had earned an excellent living and was a valued
member of his community.
As was the case for so many of his countrymen, war changed all of that.
Although he had never been active in any political causes, he had been associated with a particular group
in his hometown that made life dangerous. Frank decided to leave quickly before trouble started. He left his
successful business behind and headed for a new life in Canada.
Frank Papadrovic has led
what many would refer to
as a challenging life. Since
immigrating as a refugee to
Canada eight years ago, he has
been trying to find his “niche” in
the Canadian art world.
In Canada, Frank worked with what he knew best: the
art world. However, when he began in the business, he
quickly realized that there would be few opportunities
for him as a high-end dealer — there were far too
many people in this market segment already.
As a result, Frank worked in the area of “mass
market” art. Sometimes, this part of the market was
pejoratively referred to as the “starving artists” market
from a tag line that had been used many years ago in
television advertising for large sales of hundreds, if not
thousands, of canvases at a time.
Mass market art ranged from the atrocious velvet paintings and sad clowns up to an interesting market
segment of reasonably good art that was frequently used in institutional settings such as hotels and offices.
Frank decided to specialize in the higher-end market.
Through his business, FP Dealers, Frank sold wholesale works to those who wanted to cover walls and other
areas with reasonably well created art. For example, a single customer looking to buy works for a new 400room hotel last week bought nearly a thousand pieces. These works are prepared in a number of different
ways.
NOTE: The facts described in this teaching case are fictional and not based on any true case. Although the principles
relating to patents and trademarks are correct, references to particular intellectual property (IP) protection applications or
registrations, are purely fictitious. The only actual name used in the case is the domain name autopaint.com, which is an
auto paints supplier in the United States and to which no connection is intended.
Case Study
3
The first is by using normal lithography and silk-screening techniques that are well-known in the art world.
These methods produce prints that look like they came out of a book. Another technique that was quite
popular but more expensive was that of a giclée; a sprayed-ink method on a canvas which produced a more
realistic-looking work on canvas or sturdier material. With the advent of ink-jet computer printers, giclées had
become a large part of this market as they were relatively easy to produce.
Another method used was canvases painted by hand in a mass-production assembly line fashion. Although
the end product looked hand-painted — which it was — the assembly line production led to a certain amount
of sloppiness in the final product. As a result, the prices for the mass-produced oil paintings were never as
high as Frank thought they could be.
At a trade show for wholesale
art dealers, Frank met Charlie
Wong, who had devised a
machine that could automatically
paint canvases in oil paints.
Two years ago, Frank’s fortunes changed for the
better. On a business trip to Chicago, Illinois, Frank
identified a machine that would help create much
higher quality oil paintings.
At a trade show for wholesale art dealers, Frank met
Charlie Wong, who had devised a machine that could
automatically paint canvases in oil paints.
The resulting works were of a quality as good as, if not better than, those that could be prepared in a humanoperated assembly line fashion.
Charlie’s machine was called AutoPaint. Charlie had begun the process for obtaining patents on the machine
in many countries through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). He had initially filed the application in the
United States, designating all countries around the world, including Canada. This application had been filed
shortly before Frank had met Charlie, about 26 months ago.
Surprisingly — at least to Frank — those that attended the trade show two years ago were not that interested
in Charlie’s machine. The market had not been that receptive and Frank was the only one who placed an
order for the machine. In part, this was likely due to the high cost of the machine; Frank paid over $200 000
for the machine.
Case Study
4
Another reason might have been one of Charlie’s terms in his written contract for sale, which stated:
The AutoPaint machine is covered worldwide by patents and their use, controlled by the
owner of the patent. The machine can be used to produce paintings to be used by the owner
of the machine but cannot be used to produce paintings for resale. Any such use is an
infringement of the patent owner’s rights.
Frank just ignored the
statement. He was so excited by
the machine that he overlooked
the fine print.
Frank just ignored the statement. He was so excited
by the machine that he overlooked the fine print.
Frank had also been told by Charlie that the entire
patenting process was pretty expensive and, if he
wasn’t able to sell a lot of machines in Canada and
the United States, he would probably not pursue the
process for those countries.
Frank’s decision two years ago to buy the machine turned out to be a great success. He used it to produce
tens of thousands of paintings. He kept the machine going night and day and his customers were very
pleased with the results. They were so pleased with the product that they started asking for AutoPaint
paintings by name!
Because Frank was finding that the AutoPaint name was generating business, two months ago, he registered
the domain name, autopaint.ca. Because autopaint.com had already been registered by someone else
for use with an automobile painting company, Frank figured that the “.ca” registration was probably good
enough. He was, after all, running his business in Canada and he was getting plenty of hits on his website,
autopaint.ca.
Yesterday Frank received a letter
that threatened to derail the
entire business.
Yesterday Frank received a letter that threatened to
derail the entire business.
The letter was written by a law firm in Chicago that
Charlie Wong had hired. Frank hadn’t really had any
contact with Charlie since the trip to Chicago two
years before. Although Frank had tried to meet with
Charlie a few times since then, just to see how things were going, Frank could never seem to get an answer
to the emails and voice messages that he left. It hadn’t really concerned Frank; someone else in the art
business about six months before had suggested that Charlie had gone out of business. In any event, Frank
never heard of anyone else in Canada or the United States buying an AutoPaint machine.
Case Study
5
The letter read as follows:
To whom it may concern:
We are patent attorneys and represent Charlie Wong Enterprises PTE Limited based in
Chicago, Illinois. This company is the owner of various intellectual property rights related to
the AutoPaint® line of machines.
We understand that two years ago, you bought one such machine. As part of the sales
transaction, we understand that a condition of your purchase was the clause that:
The machine can be used to produce paintings to be used by the
owner of the machine but cannot be used to produce paintings for
resale.
Despite this condition, we understand that you have used the AutoPaint® machine to
produce paintings for resale to others.
Our client considers this an infringement of his rights under the patent rights that he has
applied for under PCT application WO2006/674402A1, which entered the national phase in
Canada and the United States.
Our client is also the owner of the registration of the trademark in the United States under
number 5762430 for the mark AutoPaint. We consider your registration and use of the domain
name autopaint.ca to be an infringement of our client’s rights.
The purpose of this letter is to require you to cease and desist your infringing use of the
machine as well as the domain name. We further require that you take immediate steps to
have the autopaint.ca domain name registered in our client’s name as quickly as possible.
Failure to comply with these requirements will result in such further action against you as
we might advise, including commencing suit in appropriate courts. Our client will hold you
responsible for all of the costs related to any such lawsuits.
DO GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.
Case Study
6
Needless to say, Frank was quite upset by this letter. His business had been going very well for the last few
months, in large part because of the AutoPaint business. Although he had yet to sell anything in the United
States from the autopaint.ca website, he was getting a lot of hits and enquiries, and he was on the verge of
making some large proposals using the machine. In particular, there was one large international hotel chain
that might take as many as 50 000 paintings within the next four months.
When Frank received the letter, he wasn’t really sure what to do. He had lunch with his accountant after
receiving the letter but she wasn’t really a lot of help. Although his accountant, Sally Tabs, was a chartered
accountant, she admitted that she didn’t have much experience with litigious matters, and especially not
matters involving intellectual property (IP). She suggested to Frank that he call a lawyer in town that she knew
worked in this type of law. However, she also told Frank that he was pretty expensive and, because he was
so much in demand, quite hard to get hold of on short notice.
The lawyer though did give
Frank some encouraging news
and some ideas of enquiries
that Frank could make.
Frank was lucky and was able to get the lawyer on the
phone for a brief 15-minute conversation when he got
back to the office after lunch. The lawyer said that he
would be happy to work with Frank on this matter but,
because he was about to start a trial out of town, he
wouldn’t be able to meet Frank for about a week.
The lawyer though did give Frank some encouraging
news and some ideas of enquiries that Frank could
make.
The first thing the lawyer suggested that Frank do was to check what trademarks and patents Charlie had
registered in Canada. Apparently Frank could do his own searches on the Canadian Intellectual Property
Office’s (CIPO) website. The lawyer suggested that he check on Charlie’s name and the name of his company
as well as the AutoPaint name and see what could be found.
Frank did so and wasn’t sure if he should be happy or not when he couldn’t find anything on CIPO’s website.
There were no issued patents or any trademark registrations for AutoPaint or any other name that Charlie
owned in Canada. Frank also checked the status of
patents and trademarks in the United States Patent
and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) website and wasn’t
as happy.
He found that there was
a patent application still
pending in the United States for
the AutoPaint machine.
He found that there was a patent application still
pending in the United States for the AutoPaint
machine.
Things weren’t also looking good on the trademark front in the USPTO. Charlie’s company had, in fact, been
issued the trademark registration cited in the cease and desist letter. The registration was for services
described as “automated art creation services”.
The conversation with the lawyer was also helpful because of some other things he suggested to Frank. He
mentioned something called “exhaustion of rights” or the “first sale doctrine” for patents and said, because
of this, Charlie wasn’t able to stop Frank from using the machine as he saw fit. Frank thought that he should
find out more about this.
Case Study
7
On the autopaint.ca domain name, the lawyer wasn’t as encouraging. He mentioned something about trademark owners being able to stop people from cybersquatting those marks through the domain name process.
He also mentioned something called the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and that there had
been a number of decisions where trademark owners had been able to force the transfer of domain names
back to them.
Case Study
8
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What could Frank have done when he bought the machine to avoid these problems? Was he correct
to ignore Charlie’s condition for the sale of the AutoPaint machine?
2. Was Charlie overreaching the rights that his patent applications gave him? How can a patent owner
control the use of his patented devices in circumstances such as this?
3. The AutoPaint machine was protected by both patents and trademarks. Why would someone choose
to use multiple forms of intellectual property protection like this?
4. How do those two systems work? How long do the protections last and what, exactly, do they
protect?
5. What types of searches are possible on the CIPO and USPTO websites? How did the information
help Frank decide how acute his problem was?
6. What type of intellectual property protection is associated with domain names? How does that
interact with trademarks law?
7. Does a Canadian domain name like autopaint.ca infringe a United States trademark registration?
What is required to constitute “infringement”?
8. What are the rules for a dispute resolution process for a “.ca” registration? What can Frank expect?
Case Study
9
GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING TO DISCUSS THIS CASE
The objective of this case study is to answer the questions that are asked and, in the process, learn
about intellectual property protection in general. All students will be expected to participate in the class
discussion, and so will have conducted additional research on the topics and points raised. To get started,
you can review the presentation Introduction to Intellectual Property at www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/introip, and the
IP Panorama1 modules 2, 3 and 9 (www.ippanorama.com). Other useful websites are given at the end of this
section.
An important aspect of using a case study is to identify the different issues that are raised. Are there other
questions that you think should also be asked or other information you should have before you can answer?
When you have identified the relevant issues, assemble pertinent information. For example, in answering the
question in this case about whether Charlie was overreaching his rights under the pending patent, you will
need to consider what the patent covers. Also, take into account the relationship between the trademark
and the patent, and how important it is.
Ultimately, in a case like this, you need to decide on what you believe the best course of action is, and why.
Be prepared to defend your choices with relevant facts and information.
USEFUL WEBSITES
The AutoPaint video
• www.cipo.ic.gc/autopaint
Canadian Intellectual Property Office
•
www.cipo.ic.gc.ca
US Patent and Trademark Office
•
www.uspto.gov
European Patent Office
• www.epo.org/searching
World Intellectual Property Organization
•
www.wipo.int
Canadian information on patents
•
www.jurisdiction.com
IP Panorama
• www.ippanorama.com
1
IP PANORAMATM is a user-friendly e-learning product on intellectual property that was jointly developed by the Korean
Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), the Korea Invention Promotion Association (KIPA), and the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO).
Case Study
10
Intellectual
property rights
in software
in Canada
For many companies, valued assets include computer software.
In fact, software is helping to make many everyday products
safer and more efficient. Software is more than “apps” and
personal computer programs; many of the newest products
and services use software to properly function. Here, you
will learn how intellectual property (IP) rights can provide
protection for your software innovations. To learn more about
each type of IP (patents, copyright, trademarks, industrial
design, and trade secrets), visit cipo.gc.ca.
PATENTS
COPYRIGHT
A patent can protect some new, non-obvious, and useful
creations in the field of computing.
Copyright can protect original literary and artistic works,
including software programs, certain data collections,
website text and web pages, and photographs or graphics.
Patents are often best suited for inventions expected to have
long-term business value and not ideal for creations that may
be obsolete in a few years.
Computer-implemented inventions may be patentable.
However, computer-implemented-methods of applying skill or
judgment aren’t patentable, neither are mental processes or
methods of evaluating math formulas. These exclusions prevent
the grant of patents for abstract ideas. But if your invention
isn’t one of these, it might be patentable.
The patent application process is complex, time-consuming
and expensive. Before applying for a patent, verify that your
invention is new (not public).
Patent applications are disclosed to the public after an
18-month period of confidentiality: competitors will be able to
see what you have filed, even if the patent application never
becomes a patent.
Every country has its own laws and practices when it comes
to whether software can be patented, and these criteria
can change over time. Consult the Canadian Patent Office’s
practice notices to keep up to date on these criteria.
To help you understand these criteria and assess whether
your invention could be patentable, we recommend speaking
to a licensed patent agent.
Computer software is considered a literary work which is
subject to copyright. Copyright can stop others from making
copies of your programs, but others could still write and
protect their own programs that will do the same thing as
yours through different underlying code. Note that data
that isn’t part of an “original” collection may be regarded
as mere facts, and you cannot copyright facts.
To help protect your work, include a copyright notice
(©, year of first publication, owner) on your work, including
your source code, and on product packaging. Where possible,
have contracts signed that set out the terms of use and access
when you share works with others. This is preferable to relying
on copyright alone. For example, if your company offers
Software as a Service (SaaS), use a subscription agreement.
Have users acknowledge that your company retains all IP rights
in the software.
Note that “Open source” software can be subject to copyright,
despite the name. Study the licensing terms for the relevant
licence to determine what limits apply to its use.
A lawyer specializing in IP and/or software can help you
protect your valuable computer software.
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
TRADEMARK
Industrial designs such as icons or graphical user
interfaces, can be protected provided that they are
applied to a finished article like a display screen.
A trademark can be a word, phrase, symbol, design,
sound, or other sign for things like apps, computer
programs, electronic or digital products, and online
services.
Industrial design is about how something looks. It protects
the unique appearance of a product, including icons or other
graphical symbols, graphic user interfaces, and screen layouts
that may be applied to it. This form of IP protects visual
features applied to a product that “appeal to the eye.”
Any associated functional aspects are not protected.
To protect a novel industrial design, you must apply to register
it. Keep the details of your design secret while you consider
whether you will apply. This will help ensure your design
remains registrable.
A lawyer specializing on IP and/or software can give advice
on whether this type of protection will suit your needs and
assist you with obtaining and maintaining an industrial design
registration.
TRADE SECRETS
Trade secrets can be almost anything not in the public
domain, including data collections, algorithms, machine
learning processes and models, product specifications,
and project management plans.
Trademarks are a powerful tool to create a unique identity
to help consumers identify the source of goods and services.
Trademarks only protect the branding, not the product’s
function. Others can make or sell similar products by using
dissimilar branding.
Although it is not a requirement, you can use symbols to signal
that your goods or services are the subject of a trademark:
the ™ symbol is used for trademarks that have not yet been
registered and the ® symbol, once a registered trademark has
been obtained.
Maintaining a registered trademark comes with responsibilities.
For example, your trademark should be used and continue to
be distinctive. You must look out for competitors who are using
trademarks that might cause confusion and you may need to
take action to maintain your rights and protect your brand.
In many countries, trademarks are registered on a first-to-file
basis. You can apply to register a trademark before using it.
Applying for a trademark as early as possible is recommended.
You can apply even if you have been using an unregistered
trademark for some time.
A licensed trademark agent can assist you with obtaining and
maintaining a trademark registration.
Trade secrets may be best suited for software that cannot be
reverse-engineered or used as an alternative to patenting.
Trade secrets are also a way to ensure that an invention or
a design is not disclosed to the public before applying for a
patent or an industrial design. Trade secret protection cannot
stop a third party from learning the secret on their own.
Also, once the secret becomes public, trade secret
protection for it ceases.
Take adequate steps to protect your trade secret. Consider
how you can document your trade secrets and the processes
put in place to guard them. Safeguards may include
contractual, physical, and electronic means.
Contracts are often used to set out the confidentiality
obligations. Trade secret theft can also be a criminal offence.
When you take adequate steps to protect a secret, you may,
among other measures, be able to sue someone who steals
or misuses it. This might apply to an employee, partner,
contractor, etc., who breaks a promise to keep it a secret.
© Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Industry, 2022
Cat. No. Iu71-4/105-2022E-PDF
ISBN 978-0-660-41760-8
Aussi offert en français sous le titre Droits de propriété intellectuelle sur les logiciels au Canada.
To view examples of computer-enabled inventions, icons, and graphical user interfaces,
go to Canada.ca/ip-toolbox and open the HTML version of this factsheet.
Canadian
Intellectual Property
Office
Office de la propriété
intellectuelle
du Canada
An Agency of
Industry Canada
Un organisme
d’Industrie Canada
Office de la propriété
intellectuelle
du Canada
Canadian
Intellectual Property
Office
AUTOPAINT
Un organisme
d’Industrie Canada
An Agency of
Industry Canada
Discussion Leader’s Guide
PATENTS
INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
COPYRIGHT
TRADEMARKS
Acknowledgements
The Canadian Intellectual Property Office would like
to recognize and thank McMaster University and
the members of the Advisory Development Team
who participated to the project:
Marc Banik
Professor, Département de management et
technologie
University of Quebec at Montreal
David Jones
Assistant Professor, Electrical and Computer
Engineering
McMaster University
Nick Bontis
Associate Professor, DeGroote School of Business
McMaster University
Rafik Loutfy
Professor, Chemical Engineering
McMaster University
Eric Brown
Professor, Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences
McMaster University
Christopher J. McKenna
Dean, College of Management and Economics
University of Guelph
Tom Corr
Associate Vice President, Commercialization,
Office of Research
University of Waterloo
Marcel Mongeon
Project Manager
Mongeon Consulting Inc.
Scott Inwood
Director, IP Management Group, Office of Research
University of Waterloo
Elsie Quaite-Randall
Executive Director, Industry Liaison Office
McMaster University
Cheryl Jensen
Vice President, Technology, Apprenticeship and
Corporate Training
Mohawk College
Permission to reproduce or use
© Industry Canada, 2013. All rights reserved. No part of this information (publication or product) may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording
or otherwise, or stored in a retrieval system, without prior written permission of the Canadian Intellectual
Property Office at [email protected].
Catalogue No. Iu71-4/10-1-2013E
ISBN 978-1-100-21702-4
Revised edition: April 2013
Discussion Leader’s Guide
Contents
A. CASE STUDY SUMMARY������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4
B. LEARNING OBJECTIVES�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4
C. CASE PRESENTATION GUIDELINES������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5
D. MAIN FACTS AND ISSUES����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6
E. CASE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7
F. TAKE-HOME MESSAGES FOR PARTICIPANTS�������������������������������������������������������� 21
G. GENERAL REFERENCES����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 22
Discussion Leader’s Guide
3
AutoPaint
Don’t assume you have all the rights
A. CASE STUDY SUMMARY
A Canadian art dealer purchases a machine that can automatically paint canvases to appear as if they were
painted by humans. The name of the machine is AutoPaint. The sales contract for the AutoPaint machine
prohibits production of paintings for resale. It states that such use constitutes an infringement of the patent
owner’s rights. The Canadian art dealer uses the AutoPaint machine to reproduce paintings for resale and
registers a domain name for a website — autopaint.ca — to attract business. He receives a cease and
desist letter from the seller alleging infringing use of both the domain name and the AutoPaint machine. The
Canadian art dealer is concerned because he plans to expand his business to the US market and seeks legal
advice.
B. LEARNING OBJECTIVES
At the end of the case study exercise, the students will be able to:
•
explain the difference between patents, trademarks and domain names;
•
apply their understanding of the different types of intellectual property (IP) to the facts of the case,
understanding that different types of IP may cover different aspects of the same invention;
•
explain who, if anyone, owns the IP associated with the AutoPaint machine and in which country;
•
explain and analyze the importance of addressing IP use and ownership issues in business
contracts, including contracts for sale; and
•
assess whether Frank has infringed any IP rights held by Charlie
through his activities in Canada, and assess whether infringement
is likely to occur as Frank expands his business to the United
States.
NOTE: The facts described in this teaching case are fictional and not based on any true case. Although the principles
relating to patents and trademarks are correct, references to particular IP protection applications or registrations, are
purely fictitious. The only actual name used in the case is the domain name autopaint.com, which is an auto paints
supplier in the United States and to which no connection is intended.
Discussion Leader’s Guide
4
C. CASE PRESENTATION GUIDELINES
The purpose of this case study is to introduce students to the basics of IP protection and the importance of
analyzing “freedom to operate” in a business context. The same facts may be used for other issues, such as
drafting business plans, asset evaluation, manufacturing scale-up, etc. These issues are beyond the scope of
this case presentation guide, but may be developed by instructors with a greater business focus. Instructors
should feel free to add questions or to expand on the discussion to represent specific areas of interest or
expertise.
In the week before the case is to be discussed, students will receive a copy of the case and discussion
questions. They will also be directed to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) website to review the
presentation Introduction to Intellectual Property at www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/introip. The case provides students
with other useful resources such as the IP PANORAMA1 modules (www.ippanorama.com).
This can be done any time in the week prior to the case discussion, but it is suggested that the students start
their case preparation with the presentation. Students should be encouraged to discuss the case with one
another.
Over the following week, the case can be presented by yourself or a guest lecturer. CIPO has a pool of
trained discussion leaders that are available upon request. The discussion leader will be responsible for
presenting the case, providing background information as necessary (a brief background lecture on key
issues may be helpful), leading the discussion, asking for answers to the prepared questions, drawing out
discussion from the students, answering other questions as they may arise, and generally managing the
presentation discussion process.
A general outline of the class presentation structure is as follows:
1.
Introduce the guest discussion leader (if applicable).
2. Open with a general overview of, and questions about, IP (preparing a brief lecture may be helpful).
3. Provide a brief overview of the case.
4. Ask the prepared questions and draw out the discussion.
5. Ask additional questions, as needed, to ensure students have an understanding of the case material.
6. Conclude with asking the students to complete the evaluation questionnaire.
7.
Provide a summary of take-home messages for students.
When discussing the case with the students, there are a number of questions that you can ask to get the
discussion started. For example:
1
•
What are the relevant facts in this case?
•
What resources did you use in preparing this case?
IP PANORAMATM is a user-friendly e-learning product on intellectual property that was jointly developed by the Korean
Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), the Korea Invention Promotion Association (KIPA), and the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO).
Discussion Leader’s Guide
5
•
How would you define IP?
•
What are the different types of protection you can seek for IP?
•
Do you have any IP protection i
