Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management. Faculty of Law Maastricht University

Transcription

1 Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management Faculty of Law Maastricht University

2 Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities (QANU) Catharijnesingel 56 PO Box RA Utrecht The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0) Telefax: +31 (0) Internet: Project number: Q QANU Text and numerical material from this publication may be reproduced in print, by photocopying or by any other means with the permission of QANU if the source is mentioned. 2 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

3 CONTENTS Report on the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. of Maastricht University...5 Administrative data regarding the programmes...5 Administrative data regarding the institution...5 Quantitative data regarding the programmes...5 Composition of the audit panel...6 Brief description of the procedures...6 Summary judgement...9 Description of the standards from the Assessment framework for limited programme assessments...12 Appendices Appendix 1: Curricula vitae of the members of the audit panel...31 Appendix 2: Domain-specific framework of reference...33 Appendix 3: Intended learning outcomes...35 Appendix 4: Overview of the curricula...37 Appendix 5: Quantitative data regarding the programmes...41 Appendix 6: Programme of the site visit...43 Appendix 7: Theses and documents studied by the audit panel...47 Appendix 8: Declarations of independence...49 This report was finalised on QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 3

4 4 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

5 Report on the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. of Maastricht University This report considers the NVAO s Assessment framework for limited programme assessments as its point of departure. Administrative data regarding the programmes Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. Name of the programme: Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. CROHO number: Level of the programme: master's Orientation of the programme: academic Number of credits: 60 EC Specialisations or tracks: - Location(s): Maastricht Mode(s) of study: full time, part time Expiration of accreditation: Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. Name of the programme: Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. CROHO number: Level of the programme: master's Orientation of the programme: academic Number of credits: 60 EC Specialisations or tracks: - Location(s): Maastricht Mode(s) of study: full time, part time Expiration of accreditation: The visit of the audit panel Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management to the Faculty of Law of Maastricht University took place on the 27 th and 28 th of February Administrative data regarding the institution Name of the institution: Status of the institution: Result institutional quality assurance assessment: Maastricht University publicly funded institution positive Quantitative data regarding the programmes The required quantitative data regarding the programmes are included in appendix 5. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 5

6 Composition of the audit panel The panel that assessed the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. consisted of: Prof. dr. P.L.C. (Paul) Torremans, chair, professor of Intellectual Property Law at the University of Nottingham, and advisor and consultant to the WIPO Academy; Dr. D. (Derk) Visser, partner EIP llp, contributor to Kluwer Patent Law website at Kluwer Law International, and lecturer European Patent Law at CEIPI; Dr. Ir. T. (Tony) Tangena, founder and partner at Tangena & Van kan and president of epi; Prof. dr. M. (Manuel) Desantes, professor of Private International Law at the University of Oviedo and Alicante, and member of the counsel of ELZABURU; R. (Rosa) Kindt, BSc., student member, Legal Research Master student at Utrecht University. The panel was supported by Mrs. J.J. (Jasne) Krooneman, MSc., who acted as secretary. Appendix 1 contains the curricula vitae of the members of the panel. Brief description of the procedures Preparation The management of the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. provided a critical reflection as part of the preparation for the assessment. After the project manager checked the completeness of the information in the critical reflection, it was forwarded to the members of the audit panel, who formulated questions based on its content. Taking a variation in grading into account, twenty theses were carefully selected by the project manager, in consultation with the chair of the panel (see appendix 7 for a list of theses and documents studied by the audit panel). Each panel member had to review two LL.M. and two M.Sc. theses. Since the panel members found some theses to be of an unsatisfactory academic level, the number of selected theses had to be increased. Due to the limited number of extra theses available, the selection was extended by including student portfolios. All assignments, essays, et cetera produced by five LL.M. and five MS.c. students were made accessible to the entire audit panel. The project manager designed a visiting timetable, which was discussed with the director of the master s programmes and the chair of the panel. Preparations for the site visit continued only after an agreement on the visiting timetable was reached. Since the panel had some questions regarding the quality of the theses, an extra interview with two thesis supervisors was added to the timetable. Site visit During the preparatory meeting held at the start of the site visit, the panel received instructions regarding the NVAO s assessment frameworks for the higher education accreditation system. It discussed its working method, the findings from the evaluation of the critical reflection and theses, and its perception of the domain-specific framework of 6 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

7 reference. The panel also studied additional information on the content of several courses, such as reference books and other learning material, and read reports on consultations in relevant committees/bodies. It analysed important management information and documentation regarding teacher and student satisfaction. Immediately after the preparatory meeting, interviews were held with representatives of the management, students, lecturers, alumni, the Programme Committee, the Board of Examiners, thesis supervisors, and finally with the dean and the management team again. Nobody made use of the open office hour, when people involved in the programmes had the opportunity to speak freely to the panel. During the interview with the M.Sc. alumni, one confidential thesis was made available, only for a short period of time. The audit panel could not study this particular thesis in advance, since it includes some confidential information about the company where the alumna is currently employed. The panel members could read most of the thesis, although several parts were kept confidential. The site visit concluded with an oral presentation of the preliminary findings by the chair of the panel, consisting of a general assessment and several specific observations and impressions of the programmes. Report After the site visit, the secretary wrote a draft report based on the panel s findings. Subsequently, this draft was sent to the panel for feedback. After processing the feedback of the panel members, the draft report was delivered to the management of the programmes to check for factual irregularities. Any suggestions made by the management were discussed with the chair of the panel. The draft report was then sent to the panel members, who had the opportunity to review the changes. A few days later, the report was finalised. Decision rules In accordance with the NVAO s Assessment framework for limited programme assessments (as of 22 November 2011), the audit panel used the following definitions for the assessment of both the standards and the programme as a whole. Generic quality The quality that can reasonably be expected in an international perspective from a higher education bachelor s or master s programme. Unsatisfactory The programme does not meet the current generic quality standards and shows serious shortcomings in several areas. Satisfactory The programme meets the current generic quality standards and shows an acceptable level across its entire spectrum. Good The programme systematically surpasses the current generic quality standards across its entire spectrum. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 7

8 Excellent The programme systematically well surpasses the current generic quality standards across its entire spectrum and is regarded as an (inter)national example. 8 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

9 Summary judgement This report provides an overview of the audit panel s findings and considerations regarding the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. of Maastricht University. The panel based its judgement on information acquired from the critical reflection, a number of selected theses, student portfolios, the interviews held during the site visit, additional reading material which was available during the site visit, and the digital learning environment. The panel found positive aspects as well as points for improvement. After careful consideration, it concludes that the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. do not satisfy the requirements for accreditation. Standard 1 The audit panel argues that the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. clearly stand out in the domain-specific framework of reference. They share a profile in which lawyers and scientists come together, and issues are approached from a knowledge mangement angle as well as from an intellectual property law perspective. The panel considers the two programmes to be unique in Europe, and it is impressed that M.Sc. graduates receive a reduction of half a year in the mandatory professional activity of three years required for enrolment for the European Qualifying Examination (EQE). The panel states that the programmes are embedded in an excellent international network, which includes the epi network, the Office for Harmonization for the Internal Market (OHIM) and the Institute of European Studies of Macau, which contributes to their international reputation. It believes that the programmes have successfully moved towards a professional orientation, and advises the management to reflect on this orientation more clearly. In the honours programme, a more academic orientation is applicable. The intended learning outcomes are straightforward, well formulated and clearly identify what each group of students requires whether LL.M. or M.Sc. students. In addition, the panel states that the intended learning outcomes target the correct professional and academic level. Standard 2 The two master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. have constructed a great teaching-learning environment according to the audit panel. It states that the programmes have very well structured and coherent curricula, which also perfectly match, despite the differences in interest between lawyers and scientists. The only suggestion the panel has regarding the curricula of the two programmes is to include scientific legal methodology and an elaboration on the structuring of texts in the beginning. It argues that this will help students in writing their thesis in period 6. The intended learning outcomes are clearly embedded in the courses, and the panel believes that Dublin descriptors 2, 3, and 4 are the three cornerstones of the development of both programmes: they seek complexity, they foster critical understanding of intellectual property, and cooperation is greatly valued. The panel is of the opinion that the profile of the programmes, the intended learning outcomes and the courses are systematically entwined. The Problem-Based Learning didactic concept further serves this symbiosis, by stimulating discussions in class, pushing students to drive the learning process, and forcing students to interact with each other. The panel asserts that the teaching formats adequately fit the teaching concept, and is satisfied with student s access to the Maastricht Internet Law Library. The course load and feasibility also fulfil the panel s QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 9

10 expectations, and it is pleased to see that the teaching staff is approachable and that students from both programmes actively help each other during group assignments. The international character of both programmes is perceived positively by the panel. The programmes are extremely internationally oriented, are embedded in excellent international intellectual property law networks, and have a great international reputation. Unsurprisingly, both programmes attract many international students, who are very motivated and dedicated to their studies. The panel could only detect one weaker element in this internationalisation process: it noted that although students need to fulfil basic language requirements, several of them have not mastered the English language sufficiently to express themselves fully on paper. The management already advises those students to subscribe for English language courses at the university. While the panel finds the intake numbers and the admission criteria adequate, it advises raising the language requirements in the near future. Regarding the staff members involved in the two master s programmes, the panel can only conclude that they are excellent teachers. Due to their participation in international networks and their good reputation, the programmes attract some of the most famous names in the field to assist as non-resident staff members in the courses. Attention is paid to the consistency in the courses, and students and alumni consider the resident as well as nonresident staff members very approachable. The audit panel considers the student-teacher ratio to be rather high, but holds that this does not have any negative consequences for the programmes. However, it advises recruiting one more full-time staff member soon, as the programmes currently depend heavily on one leading person. The panel states that the programme-specific quality control is well organised. Standard 3 The audit panel has some serious concerns regarding the assessment policy and the achieved learning outcomes of the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. First, the current situation of the Board of Examiners is undesirable: its three members are at the same time first and second supervisors in many thesis projects. Since the composition of the Board of Examiners is forced upon the two master s programmes, the panel can only stimulate the faculty to implement the proposed changes (i.e. to integrate the two Boards of Examiners of the faculty) as soon as possible. Second, the panel raises some issues about the assessment policy. It states that there should be no more than one resit per exam, that full-time and part-time students should get the same amount of time for the same questions. The panel considers it advisable to monitor the risk of free-riding as part of a formal approach. It stresses the importance of having formal guidelines of how to assess group assignments while at the same taking the individual contributions into account. Third, the panel is not convinced by the thesis procedure as it functions at the moment. It advises the management to utilise the special circumstances procedure when needed, and to keep close track of the students progress to avoid them exceeding the terms. This also means that the teaching staff should provide prompt feedback on drafts. Finally, the panel concluded that more than 10% of the selected theses of both master s programmes was unsatisfactory. Although many students enrolled in the programmes already have a master s or even a PhD degree, the level of some theses was a bare pass even for an 10 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

11 undergraduate level. In addition, the panel graded nearly all selected theses points lower than the thesis supervisors. The extra student portfolios of five LL.M. and five M.Sc. students did not convince the panel that the students were sufficiently trained in academic writing through the courses, nor that all students showed an obvious learning curve. Furthermore, the panel finds it rather peculiar that there are no differences in the assessment standards of the LL.M. and M.Sc. theses. It could not make a clear distinction between theses of both programmes. Hence, the panel recommends that the management reviews the thesis assessment standards, paying extra attention to scientific legal methodology and structuring of texts in the curricula, and raise the language admission requirements. Fortunately, the panel is enthusiastic about the opportunities for graduate students in the labour market. From the interviews with alumni it became clear that both master s programmes were considered very useful, and that many students have strengthened their position in the international labour market. Notwithstanding the efforts to reunite alumni, the panel recommends the creation of formal alumni associations. The audit panel assesses the standards from the Assessment framework for limited programme assessments in the following way: Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M.: Standard 1: Intended learning outcomes Standard 2: Teaching-learning environment Standard 3: Assessment and achieved learning outcomes General conclusion good good unsatisfactory unsatisfactory Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc.: Standard 1: Intended learning outcomes Standard 2: Teaching-learning environment Standard 3: Assessment and achieved learning outcomes General conclusion good good unsatisfactory unsatisfactory The chair and the secretary of the audit panel hereby declare that all members of the panel have studied this report and that they agree with the judgements laid down in it. They confirm that the assessment has been conducted in accordance with the demands relating to independence. Date: Prof. P.L.C. (Paul) Torremans Mrs. J.J. (Jasne) Krooneman, MSc. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 11

12 Description of the standards from the Assessment framework for limited programme assessments Standard 1: Intended learning outcomes The intended learning outcomes of the programme have been concretised with regard to content, level and orientation; they meet international requirements. Explanation: As for level and orientation (bachelor s or master s; professional or academic), the intended learning outcomes fit into the Dutch qualifications framework. In addition, they tie in with the international perspective of the requirements currently set by the professional field and the discipline with regard to the contents of the programme. Findings Standard 1 first provides an insight into the audit panel s findings regarding the domainspecific framework of reference (1.1). Subsequently, attention is paid to the profile and orientation (1.2) and the intended learning outcomes and their level (1.3). 1.1 Domain-specific framework of reference In the domain-specific framework of reference (see appendix 2), the management of the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. stated that the programmes are distinct from other European university programmes or professional training offered by national patent organisations. It argued that a combination of factors ensures that graduates of both programmes are equipped to work not only as lawyers, but also as intermediaries with patent agents and managers in innovative companies and research institutes. Another special feature is the fact that the Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. programme has been accredited by the European Patent Office (EPO) as granting admission to the European Qualifying Exam (EQE) since The audit panel studied the domain-specific framework of reference and found that the management applies a reference framework in which the two programmes clearly stand out. It believes that bringing lawyers and scientists together is an extremely complex challenge, and unique in Europe. In its opinion, there are no other programmes in Europe where issues are approached from a knowledge management perspective as well as an intellectual property law perspective. It praises the management for the innovative and challenging stand. In addition, the panel states that it is a major achievement that the M.Sc. programme offers graduate students a reduction of half a year in the mandatory professional activity of three years required for enrolment for the European Qualifying Examination (EQE). Only a few institutions in Europe are recognised by the European Patent Office to grant such a reduction. 1.2 Profile and orientation According to the critical reflection, the two master s programmes offer selective and smallscale programmes that aim to prepare their graduates for specialised positions at the crossroads of law, policy and knowledge management in technology-driven innovative and creative industries. The Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. programme focusses on comparative litigation and/or entrepreneurship, valorisation and intellectual property management, while the Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge 12 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

13 Management M.Sc. programme is specifically designed for graduates of science and technology who aspire to become intellectual property specialists, knowledge managers, or patent attorneys. Both Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management programmes have collaborate with the Institute for Globalisation and International Regulation, a multidisciplinary research institute in international economic law based at the Faculty of Law at Maastricht University. Students of the Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management honours programme, which includes ten of the most promising students, have access to seminars, expert lectures, and a research community through the Institute for Globalisation and International Regulation. Both programmes have an academic as well as a professional orientation. During the master s programmes, students are trained to conduct independent academic research and to solve multidisciplinary questions relevant in this field of law. At the same time, however, they acquire skills to successfully compete for job positions and participate in an international legal and/or international work environment. The audit panel studied the profile of the master s programmes and is of opinion that the concept of the profile, bringing lawyers and scientists together, is truly unique. It therefore argues that this aspect deserves more attention in the critical reflection and recruitment material than is currently the case. The interviews made clear that everybody contributing to the programme is fully aware of and actively participates in this concept. The panel appreciates the fact that M.Sc. students are encouraged to attend the LL.M. courses, and that LL.M. students are encouraged to attend the M.Sc. courses. It is also very enthusiastic about the cooperation between those two groups of students in group assignments. This interaction throughout the programmes confirms the strength of the profile. According to the panel, it is also of great value for the programmes to be embedded in the epi network, to have ties with the Office for Harmonization for the Internal Market (OHIM) and to have close connections with the Institute of European Studies of Macau. Due to their participation in those international networks, the LL.M. as well as the M.Sc. programme have built an outstanding international reputation. When it comes to the orientation of the programmes, the panel argues that both programmes have successfully moved towards a professional orientation. Although the critical reflection states that there is an academic as well as professional orientation, the panel advises the management to reflect on their orientation more clearly. There is a more academic orientation for those who participate in the honours programme, but the regular programmes are more equipped towards a professional stance. 1.3 Intended learning outcomes and academic level As stated in the critical reflection, the aim of the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. is to provide students with a thorough understanding of intellectual property law and knowledge management, which enables them to work in an international, multicultural environment as academics, lawyers, consultants or officials of governmental and non-governmental organisations. The M.Sc. graduates are granted a reduction of half a year in the mandatory professional activity of three years required for enrolment for the European Qualifying Examination. In order to achieve those aims, four intended learning outcomes have been formulated. The first outcome distinguishes between LL.M and M.Sc. students: QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 13

14 a. Graduates of the advanced master intellectual property and knowledge management LL.M. will hold an expertise on the legal and commercial aspects of IPR and knowledge management, acquiring skills to work at an academic level in a European and/or transnational legal and policy environment in close interaction with colleagues holding a degree in science and technology. In addition to their legal training, LLM students will be well versed with concepts such as entrepreneurship, valorization, and knowledge management, and the role of IP law in commerce, research and innovation policy. They will be well versed with concepts such as patent and trademark litigation, international and European IP law, international IP treaties, judicial proceedings and jurisprudence, etc.. b. Graduates of the advanced master intellectual property and knowledge management M.Sc. have the knowledge will hold an expertise on the scientific, economic and commercial aspects of knowledge creation, protection and commercialization. They will acquire the relevant skills to work at an academic level in international, multicultural environment as European patent agents, national patent agents, officials of the European patent office or at other European or international governmental and non-governmental organizations in the field of intellectual property and knowledge management in close interaction with colleagues holding a degree in law. They will be well versed with concepts such as entrepreneurship, valorization and knowledge management, patent drafting and procedure, and the role of patent drafting for the purpose of commercial strategies and international patent litigation. The full list of the intended learning outcomes is available in appendix 3. The intended learning outcomes can also be matched to the internationally accepted Dublin descriptors for master s programmes. The audit panel studied the intended learning outcomes and considers them to be straightforward and well formulated. In its opinion, the intended learning outcomes clearly identify the level each group of students must attain whether LL.M. or M.Sc. students. In addition, the learning outcomes target the correct professional and academic level. Considerations The audit panel studied the domain-specific framework of reference, the profile and orientation, and the intended learning outcomes of the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. It believes that the programmes are unique in Europe, approaching issues from a knowledge management perspective as well as an intellectual property law perspective. Due to their participation in international networks, the LL.M. as well as the M.Sc. programme have built an outstanding international reputation. In addition, the panel is impressed by the fact that graduates of the M.Sc. programme are granted half a year discount in professional activity when enrolling for the very difficult European Qualifying Examination. The main characteristic of the profile of both programmes is the complex challenge of bringing lawyers and scientists together. The panel advises the management to stress this unique combination even more clearly. It also recommends that the management emphasise the professional orientation of both programmes. It appreciates this professional stance, and states that a more academic orientation is valid for the honours programme students. The intended learning outcomes are straightforward, well formulated 14 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

15 and target the correct professional and academic (master s) level. In addition, they specify the requirements for LL.M. and M.Sc. students. Conclusion Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M.: the audit panel assesses Standard 1 as good. Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc.: the audit panel assesses Standard 1 as good. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 15

16 Standard 2: Teaching-learning environment The curriculum, staff and programme-specific services and facilities enable the incoming students to achieve the intended learning outcomes. Explanation: The contents and structure of the curriculum enable the students admitted to achieve the intended learning outcomes. The quality of the staff and of the programme-specific services and facilities is essential to that end. Curriculum, staff, services and facilities constitute a coherent teaching-learning environment for the students. Findings Standard 2 provides an insight into the curricula (2.1) of the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. Special attention is paid to the relation between the learning outcomes and the curricula in section 2.2. Then, the teaching concept, formats and programme-specific services (2.3) and the feasibility (2.4) are analysed. In section 2.5 the quality and quantity of the teaching staff are discussed. This standard concludes with an analysis of the programme-specific quality control (2.6). 2.1 Curricula The audit panel studied the curricula (see appendix 4) of the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. Both of them consist of six periods covering one academic year. In general, three types of courses are offered: common courses, LL.M. courses and M.Sc. courses. These three types are again split into mandatory and optional courses. Hence, there are mandatory and optional common courses, mandatory and optional LL.M. courses, and mandatory and optional M.Sc. courses. From the optional common courses, students have to select a minimum of three. From the optional LL.M. and optional M.Sc. courses, students have to choose a minimum of three and a maximum of four. The audit panel studied both curricula and noted that they are coherent and very well structured. It found a nice balance between mandatory and optional courses in both programmes. In addition, it is impressed by the great match between the two curricula since it is not easy to combine the interests of scientists and lawyers. For example, in the first period of the academic year, LL.M. as well as M.Sc. students attend two mandatory common courses: Principles of Intellectual and Industrial Property Law (5 EC) and Copyright and related rights (5 EC). The first course focuses on the principles of intellectual and industrial property law as a means to provide incentives to creativity and innovation and to regulate the market. It also traces the development of intellectual property law from an instrument of national innovation policy to a global trade issue. In the second course, students cover copyright and related rights in a comparative context, focussing not only on the European Union and its member states, but also on the United States. These courses brings the LL.M. and M.Sc. students together, right from the start of the programmes. The panel finds the course outlines very clear and straightforward. Students know what the content of the course is, what teaching methods will be applied, what kind of assessment they can expect, and what the targets are. The only suggestion the panel has regarding the curricula of the two programmes is to pay attention to scientific legal methodology and the structuring of texts. The panel fully understands the management s original decision to exclude such courses: the management assumes that students who apply for one of the master s programmes have already conducted academic research. However, now that this assumption 16 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

17 has been proven to be incorrect (see standard 3), it advises adding some methodology and structuring of texts in the beginning of both curricula, as this will help students with their thesis writing in period 6. Currently, such teaching is only available for honours students. 2.2 Relation between learning outcomes and the curriculum The audit panel analysed the relation between the learning outcomes and the curricula. It also focussed on the cohesion and composition within the curricula. The panel is of the opinion that all intended learning outcomes are clearly embedded in the curricula. In the common Entrepreneurship, IP Management and Valorisation course, for example, students learn how to cooperate at a professional and academic level and gain experience in playing different parts in teams comprised of lawyers and scientists. In the LL.M. Global Policy and Economics of Intellectual Property Law course, students have to bring together various elements, such as the economic underpinnings of intellectual property law and policies of the WIPO, WTO and its main members. In order to identify which aspect they are dealing with and what the economic impact will be, the students have to apply their knowledge and skills. Another example where students have to apply their knowledge and skills and have to cooperate in a team comprised of different players is the M.Sc. IP and Life Sciences course. At the end of this course, the student is conversant with issues concerning pharmaceuticals or biotechnical inventions, as well as ethical and practical considerations in respect of clinical trials and inventive activity in research institutions. In those types of morality related issues, different people bring in different expertise, the panel argues. The panel also identified a clear relation between the Dublin descriptors and the two curricula. In its opinion, descriptors 2, 3, and 4 are the three cornerstones of the development of both programmes: they seek complexity, they foster critical understanding of intellectual property, and they value cooperation greatly. The cooperation refers not only to the collaboration with partner universities, but also to the teamwork of law and science students. 2.3 Teaching concept, formats and programme-specific services The audit panel examined which teaching concept and formats form the basis of the education offered, and which programme-specific services enable this. Just like other educational programmes offered by Maastricht University, the Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management master s programmes follow the Problem-Based Learning (PBL) approach. This approach is student-centred and includes active learning from approachable tutors. Students are personally responsible for their academic education and actively address issues in order to apply insights to various questions, and gain skills such as presenting, debating, writing and working together in small tutorial groups. The idea is that tutors participate in those tutorial groups, guiding the group process, asking critical, substantive questions, sharing their knowledge and supporting students when needed. According to the course descriptions in the critical reflection, the teaching formats applied in the programmes include lectures, tutorials and mock trials. Students of both master s programmes have access to the Maastricht University Library and the Maastricht Internet Law Library (MILL). In addition, they have access to the electronic learning environment, ELEUM. The panel studied the teaching concept and is very enthusiastic about PBL and the way it is put into practice. Interviews with teachers and students confirmed that students hand in QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 17

18 assignments prior to the lectures. These assignments are then assessed by the teachers. In this way, students are well prepared, and the lectures are not a single-sided transfer of knowledge, but actively foster discussions. According to the panel, it is essential that students drive the process in a master s programme. It is also convinced that the teaching concept contributes to the cooperation between the two different groups of students. PBL forces students to interact with each other. Especially from the interview with the M.Sc. students, it became clear that they really appreciate the knowledge of LL.M. students in group assignments. The LL.M. alumni confirmed that in their case, PBL is a very useful concept for lawyers. The panel agrees with the alumni: if you deal with intellectual property, patents, trademarks, et cetera, you have to find solutions to a problem. PBL not only fits well in the profile of the programme, it also suits the teaching formats applied: lectures, tutorials and mock trials. In addition, from the interviews with students, it became clear that they prepare their assignments in the library, using the Maastricht Internet Law Library. 2.4 Feasibility The quantitative data regarding intake numbers, transfers and graduates, the teacher-student ratio and the average amount of face-to-face instruction per stage of the study programmes can be found in appendix 5. Intake numbers In terms of intake numbers, the LL.M. programme attracts more students than the M.Sc. programme. There are similar selection criteria for both master s programmes, such as demonstrated proficiency in the English language and a recognised bachelor s or master s degree. The intake numbers for the M.Sc. programme have been rather stable over the past few years. Those of the LL.M. programme increased significantly between the cohort and the cohort. The interview with the management clarified that the applicants need either a background in law or a great affiliation with law and must be highly motivated. The letter of motivation therefore plays an important part in the selection of students. Certain aspects of the letter are checked such as: does it include an indication that the student wants to change his/her career path, and/or does the employer accept the application? There is a maximum intake of around 30 students for both master s programmes together, higher numbers would be logistically unrealistic. The numbers of applicants varies between 40 to 70, and the admission fluctuates around people. The audit panel is satisfied with the selection process. It argues that the rejection of students shows that there is a proper selection in place. Although it realises that the admission requirement of an IELTS score of 6.5 or a TOEFL score of 233 computer-based, 575 paperbased, 90 internet-based is university policy, it would strongly recommend increasing the English language requirements further. Since more and more comparable international programmes now operate an IELTS score of 7.0, including a 7.0 minimum in writing, it suggests to increase the language requirements to this level. However, in case these requirements are not possible, the panel also appreciates an overal IELTS score of 6.5, with a minimum of 6.5 in writing. It believes that this would be a step forward and would solve the majority of the language issues in assignments and theses (see standard 3). 18 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

19 Course load and feasibility During the site visit, Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. students confirmed that they spend hours per week on their studies. The part-time Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. students stated that they spend hours per week on the programme. According to the LL.M. students, there are no obstacles in the curriculum. The M.Sc. students argue that for slightly more complex law issues, they need to ask for help from LL.M. students. Since they work together on group assignments, the LL.M. students can explain some basic knowledge about law in the beginning of the programme. Both groups of students stated that in case of pressing questions, they can contact the staff members, who are always willing to help. The audit panel finds the course load and feasibility for both programmes adequate. Internationalisation Apart from the fact that both programmes are taught in English, they include some international study trips as well. Both programmes are part of the European Intellectual Property Institutes Network (EIPIN), and as a result, students can go on study trips to partner universities and research institutes situated in Spain (Magister Lvcentinus, Alicante), France (CEIPI, Strasbourg), Germany (MIPLC, Munich) and the United Kingdom (Queen Mary IP Research Institute, London). Attendance on these trips is semi-compulsory and active participation is required. The audit panel confirms that both programmes are indeed very internationally oriented. It believes that apart from the study trips, they also profit from their embeddedness in an international network in the search for non-resident teaching staff. In addition, they have a good international reputation and attract a lot of international students. The panel was impressed by the number of alumni who had come to the Netherlands especially for the interviews during the site visit. The only downside of this international outlook is the use of language. The panel noted that although students need to fulfil basic language requirements, many of them do not master the English language sufficiently to express themselves clearly in assignments or theses. This worried the panel, and it recommends increasing the language requirements in the near future. 2.5 Teaching staff The audit panel focussed on the quality and quantity of the teaching staff of the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. Quality From the critical reflection it became clear that 36 staff members are currently involved in the Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management master s programmes. Those staff members can be divided into resident and non-resident staff. Since non-resident staff members often work in law firms or abroad at other universities, their availability is limited. Therefore, all staff members directly employed by Maastricht University (5 in total) have a duty to maintain the integrity of the programmes. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 19

20 Having read the critical reflection, the audit panel initially had some doubts about the participation of non-resident staff members. However, these worries were all resolved during the site visit. The non-residential staff is clearly fully aware of what they need to cover in the lectures, and they are easily approachable via . As the M.Sc. alumni explained, their teaching is a continuation of what is taught, and the non-resident staff members always respond to s. The LL.M. alumni confirmed that it is a great benefit to have foreign teachers participating in the curricula. The management clarified that the non-residential staff only teaches 2 EC courses, without being joined on the course by a residential staff member. It prefers to work with staff members from an organisation or a firm, so that in case one of the non-resident teachers is not available, the organisation or firm can send someone else. Among the Maastricht University teaching staff, two out of the five teachers involved in these programmes hold a University Teaching Qualification (UTQ). The audit panel states that the master s programmes house excellent resident and nonresident teaching staff. The management has been able to attract some of the famous names in the field to assist in the programmes. Quantity According to their own calculations, the master s programmes had a student-teacher ratio of 23:1 in , excluding the study trips. The audit panel considers the student-teacher ratio to be rather high, but argues that it does not seem to have any negative consequences for the programmes. It states that the current staff is capable of providing the required quality of education. However, if the programmes want to develop successfully and attract more students, more staff members will be needed. The panel was pleased to find that the dean is willing to attract more staff members, if the programmes wish to grow in the near future. The panel also suggests recruiting one more full-time staff member soon. Currently, the programmes depend heavily on one leading person. Although the master s programmes function very well at the moment, the panel warns that if that one person leaves, both programmes will suffer. 2.6 Programme-specific quality control From the interview with the Programme Committee it became clear that the programmespecific quality control is organised by a faculty-wide committee which takes care of all English-taught programmes. Despite the fact that the committee has many student members, no students from the Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management programmes are involved. Nevertheless, the audit panel is convinced that the committee functions adequately. The Programme Committee deals with changes in the curricula and the quality of programmes and analyses the teacher and student evaluations. In addition, it reads the critical reflections and provides comments, and gives advice to programme management. Its members assert that since the Programme Committee is part of the faculty, their voice is heard. Considerations The audit panel believes that the two programmes have constructed a good teaching-learning environment. The curricula are coherent and very well structured. The panel is impressed by the great match between the curricula, despite the difficulties of combining the interests of 20 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

21 scientists and lawyers. The only suggestion the panel has regarding the curricula of the two programmes is to include scientific legal methodology and an elaboration on the structuring of texts in the beginning of the curricula. It argues that this will help students with writing their thesis in period 6. All intended learning outcomes are clearly embedded in the curricula, according to the panel. It also states that Dublin descriptors 2, 3, and 4 are the three cornerstones of the development of both programmes: they seek complexity, they foster critical understanding of intellectual property, and value cooperation greatly. The panel is very enthusiastic about the Problem-Based Learning didactic concept, as it suits the profile of the programmes very well. It stimulates discussions in class, pushes students to drive the learning process, and forces students to interact with each other. The panel finds the teaching formats adequate for the teaching concept, and is satisfied with students access to the Maastricht Internet Law Library. The panel finds the intake numbers and admission criteria to be adequate, although it would recommend raising the language requirements. The course load and feasibility also fulfil the panel s expectations, and it is pleased to see that the teaching staff is approachable and that students from both programmes help each other. The international character of both programmes is a very positive aspect. They are extremely internationally oriented, embedded in excellent international intellectual property law networks, and have a great international reputation. They attract many international students, who are very motivated and dedicated to their studies. The panel could only detect one weak element in this internationalisation process: it noted that although students need to fulfil basic language requirements, many of them have not mastered the English language sufficiently to express themselves successfully. It advises raising the language requirements in the near future. Regarding the staff members involved in the two master s programmes, the panel can only conclude that they are excellent teachers. The programmes attract some of the famous names in the field to assist as non-resident staff members in the courses. The consistency is ensured, and resident as well as non-resident staff members are easily approachable. The audit panel considers the student-teacher ratio to be rather high, but argues that it does not seem to have any negative consequences for the programmes. However, it advises recruiting one more fulltime staff member soon, as the programmes currently depend heavily on one leading person. It confirms that the programme-specific quality control is well organised. Conclusion Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M.: the audit panel assesses Standard 2 as good. Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc.: the audit panel assesses Standard 2 as good. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 21

22 Standard 3: Assessment and achieved learning outcomes The programme has an adequate assessment system in place and demonstrates that the intended learning outcomes are achieved. Explanation: The level achieved is demonstrated by interim and final tests, final projects and the performance of graduates in actual practice or in post-graduate programmes. The tests and assessments are valid, reliable and transparent to the students. Findings Standard 3 considers the findings regarding the assessment system (3.1) and subsequently deals with the question of whether the graduates have achieved the learning outcomes (3.2). 3.1 Assessment system The audit panel analysed the assessment system of the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. and focussed on the assessment policy, including the functioning of the Board of Examiners, the examinations and the thesis procedure. Assessment policy Regarding the design of exams, all teachers are requested to submit one or two open questions as well as three multiple-choice questions related to the topic that they are teaching. At the end of each teaching period, the programme coordinators compose the exams, using these questions. The exams are checked for consistency, accuracy and requirements in terms of intended learning outcomes by the Board of Examiners. Students can inspect their corrected exams and ask for clarification about the content, the answer key, or corrections. Because of the relatively small numbers, resit exams are conducted orally in the presence of two examiners. Assignments are held throughout the year. All assignments are entered into an electronic assignments portfolio within the electronic learning environment. Individual feedback is provided by the teacher. The teachers are also requested to provide collective feedback during their contact hours with the group. The audit panel appreciates the weight that is given to the assignments (40% for the assignments, and 60% for the exams). The panel considers it advisable to monitor the risk of free-riding as part of a formal approach. Despite the fact that there were no complaints about the group assignments by students or alumni, the panel nevertheless would like to stress the importance of having formal guidelines on how to assess group assignments while at the same taking the individual contributions into account. From the interview with the Board of Examiners, it became clear that their composition is rather unfortunate. Currently, the Board of Examiners consists of only three members, who are also involved as first and second supervisors in the thesis procedure. Within the faculty, there are two Boards of Examiners: one for the regular programmes and one for the postinitial programmes. Consequently, staff from the Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management programmes were not the only members on the Board of Examiners, members from International Law used to be involved as well. However, the International Law programme was cancelled. Therefore, only the Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management programmes are still involved. As this current situation is undesirable, there is a 22 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

23 proposal to reform the Boards of Examiners by integrating them. This new system will be in place from the next academic year onwards. Although the audit panel finds the current functioning of the Board of Examiners unacceptable, it realises that the situation was forced upon the two master s programmes, and that they did not create this situation themselves. It supports the future plans and urges the faculty to make adjustments for the coming academic year. Examinations Students of both master s programmes have to complete assignments and take exams, they are also assessed on the basis of their participation in role-play or mock trials. According to the audit panel, the number of resits that is allowed is rather problematic. From the interview with the Board of Examiners, it became clear that students may fail the exam and then resit twice. The panel is of the opinion that there should be no more than one resit per exam. In addition, it has some concerns about the allotted time for full-time and part-time students during exams. In the case of the part-time M.Sc. students, the panel was informed that they sit fewer subjects and therefore get fewer questions for the same amount of time as the full-time students. It would like to emphasise that it is important to have an equal time division: students should get the same amount of time for the same questions. Thesis procedure The LL.M. thesis as well as the M.Sc. thesis should contain between 8000 and 10,000 words. The theses are worth 6 EC, whereby one credit corresponds to 28 hours of work. The theses account for 10% of the total mandatory course load of each master s programme. Students can choose their own topic and are supervised by a staff member. During the thesis process, everything is locked in an electronic thesis system. In this system, students upload versions of their outline, problem statement or chapters so they can receive feedback from their supervisor. However, due to the small student population, most contact remains personal. Although the thesis procedure looks nice on paper, it does not seem to work well in practice. From the interviews it became clear that students are requested to post their drafts online, but that several students do not post anything until the moment of completing the thesis. In addition, the audit panel gained the impression that although students are requested to post their preliminary ideas, including a problem statement, an abstract, a title and an initial bibliography in January, some of them had not posted anything by the time of the site visit at the end of February, and many were still waiting for feedback on their first input. The panel finds this current state of affairs worrying. The procedure seems to engender a contradiction: on the one hand the independence of the student is emphasised, while on the other hand, students are pushed by the staff members to submit their drafts. The panel wonders why the staff members simply do not keep track of their students, and send them a reminder when they are late in handing in their draft(s). It feels that management of the programmes should reconsider the word independence in this context. The panel also noticed that the management of the programmes struggles with the fixed deadline for handing in the thesis. It is definitely in favour of carefully sticking to fixed deadlines, but it argues that this underutilises the special circumstances procedure. From the interview with thesis supervisors, it became clear that students who deliver an unsatisfactory thesis due to special circumstances can be provided with a satisfactory grade because the supervisors take these circumstances into account while grading. However, this leads to satisfactory theses that do not fulfil the requirements. The panel points out that in these cases QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 23

24 the supervisors should apply the special circumstances procedure to make sure students get the opportunity to postpone the deadline of the thesis and eventually hand in a decent product. The panel was disappointed to find that many students in the interviews were not aware of the assessment standards for the thesis. They did know where to find them online, however. 3.2 Achieved learning outcomes The theses are assessed according to assessment standards for theses, in which several criteria are split into sub-criteria. They cover topics ranging from the lay-out of the thesis to the level of innovation, language and writing skills. Unfortunately, the audit panel had to conclude that many theses produced by both programmes are of an unsatisfactory level. In several theses, there was no clear objective, no logical and consistent line of reasoning, no consistent use of footnotes and referencing, the use of English was poor, the work contained no demonstration of adequate knowledge of literature in the field, the research methodology was not presented or applied in a well-considered way, and there was no innovative input from the author. In some cases, the panel considered the thesis to be a bare pass even for an undergraduate level. Since many students already have a master s or even PhD degree when they enrol in one of the Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management programmes, the panel finds it unacceptable to read such low-quality theses. Apart from the fact that the panel found more than 10% unsatisfactory theses in the selection, it also graded nearly all theses points lower than grade awarded by the thesis supervisors. The extra student portfolios of five LL.M. and five M.Sc. students could not convince the panel that the students were sufficiently trained in academic writing throughout the courses, nor that all students showed an obvious learning curve. In group assignments the contribution of the individual student was unclear. Furthermore, the panel finds it rather peculiar that there are no differences in the assessment standards of the LL.M. and M.Sc. theses. It could not make a clear distinction between theses of either programme. The panel asked for clarification during the interview with the Board of Examiners, and the extra interview with two thesis supervisors. It discovered that the difference in grading between the panel and the supervisors could be explained by another set of assessment criteria that the supervisors apply. This set of criteria does not match the assessment standards but is based on the perception that a 6 is the bare minimum. In order to get a 6, the supervisors argued, the thesis does not necessarily have to contribute new knowledge (hence, it does not have to be innovative) but contains an overview of the current state of play. In other words: the thesis shows a good attempt to come up with something decent. If it contains no more than an overview, it can still be awarded a pass grade. If students get a higher score for their thesis, then it includes a deeper analysis of the law, it shows that they are aware of economic considerations, it contains comparative research, or it is innovative. Considering the fact that the thesis is only worth 6 EC, the panel finds the assessment criteria as set out by the thesis supervisors understandable. Why should all of the assessment standards set out by the faculty be applied to a 6 EC thesis while the majority of the programmes at the faculty have a thesis worth 12 EC? However, even with this new set of criteria, some theses would still not achieve the bare minimum. Whilst the panel fully understands the reduced role given to the thesis on both programmes, and hence the 6 EC rating, the thesis remains part of the assessment of each student and in turn of the assessment standard for the programmes. Theses that do not achieve the bare minimum, allowance made for the context, are therefore a real problem. The panel concludes that the theses do not 24 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

25 match the assessment criteria and intended learning outcomes that the programmes have set out. It strongly recommends that the management of the programmes reconsider the assessment criteria, paying extra attention to scientific legal methodology and structuring of texts in the curricula, and raise the language admission requirements. In addition, since the panel wishes to see a difference between the LL.M. and M.Sc. theses, it recommends to distinguish slightly different assessment criteria for both programmes. When it comes to the opportunities for graduate students on the labour market, the panel is enthusiastic. From the interviews with alumni, it became clear that both master s programmes were considered very useful, and that many students have strengthened their position on the international labour market. While some efforts have been to reunite alumni, the panel recommends the creation of formal alumni associations. Considerations The audit panel studied the assessment system and evaluated whether graduates have achieved the learning outcomes. Given the enthusiastic tone of the findings under standards 1 and 2, the panel finds it very unfortunate to conclude that the current assessment system, which includes the functioning of the Board of Examiners, the examinations and the thesis procedure, is of an unsatisfactory level. It realises that the unhealthy situation of the Board of Examiners, in which the three members involved also have a role as first and second supervisors in the thesis procedure, has been forced upon the programmes, and calls for immediate change. It can only encourage the faculty to implement the proposed reforms as soon as possible. Regarding the assessment system, the panel would like to take this opportunity to stress the importance of having formal guidelines about how to assess group assignments while at the same taking the individual contributions into account. Furthermore, it is hesitant about the number of resits that is currently allowed, and argues that full-time and part-time students have to be treated equally when it comes to the time allotted during exams: students should get the same amount of time for the same questions. The panel feels that the thesis procedure needs some improvement: it advises the management to keep better track of the students performance and to utilise the special circumstances procedure when necessary. The panel was disappointed to find more than 10% of the selected theses of both master s programmes to be unsatisfactory. Although many students enrolled in the programmes already have a master s or even PhD degree, the level of several theses was a bare pass even for an undergraduate level. In addition, the panel graded nearly all selected theses points lower than the thesis supervisors did. The extra student portfolios of five LL.M. and five M.Sc. students could not convince the panel that the students were sufficiently trained in academic writing throughout the courses, nor that all students showed an obvious learning curve. Furthermore, it finds it remarkable that there are no differences in the assessment standards of the LL.M. and M.Sc. theses. It could not make a clear distinction between theses from either programme. Even the distinction between the orientation of regular students and honours students was not clarified in the assessment standards. From the interviews the panel discovered that the thesis supervisors use another set of criteria to evaluate the theses than is presented on paper. However, even with this new set of criteria, it argues that some of the theses would still not pass. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 25

26 The panel believes that the management of the programmes needs to reconsider the thesis procedure and the thesis assessment. Since it is only worth 6 EC, it might indeed be useful to formulate a new set of assessment criteria. They should at least clarify what is expected from LL.M. students, what is expected from M.Sc. students. It also strongly recommends that the management of the programmes pay extra attention to scientific legal methodology and structuring of texts in the curricula, and raise the language admission requirements. The graduate students seem to have achieved the intended learning outcomes when evaluated in a professional environment. The alumni found the programmes to be very useful, and many students have strengthened their position on the international labour market. Although there have been some efforts to reunite alumni, the panel recommends the creation of formal alumni associations. Conclusion Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M.: the audit panel assesses Standard 3 as unsatisfactory. Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc.: the audit panel assesses Standard 3 as unsatisfactory. 26 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

27 General conclusion With great pleasure, the audit panel assessed the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. It genuinely believes that both programmes are unique in Europe and adequately cater for the needs of society. While a combination of science and law skills are the standard for patent attorneys in the United States of America, in Europe only a few lawyers dealing with patents are scientifically trained as well. In order to compete in the international field of intellectual property law, it is essential that lawyers and scientists learn how to work together. Of course, this is a very complex challenge, and requires many years of practice and time investment. That the Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management programmes manage to motivate LL.M. students to sit in M.Sc. courses, and to stimulate LL.M. students to help M.Sc. students in the group assignments, is already a great achievement. The panel is convinced that the structure of both programmes is adequately finetuned to the needs of both groups, and that their embeddedness in international networks provides great opportunities for the students. Approaching issues from an intellectual property law perspective as well as a knowledge management perspective is an aspect that deserves great respect. The panel finds it very unfortunate that the thesis and assessment system have a rather heavy weight in the assessment frameworks for the higher education accreditation system. The panel understands the reduced role given to the thesis on both programmes, but it remains part of the limited programme assessment. Currently, the panel has to conclude that the majority of the selected theses produced in both programmes do not achieve the bare minimum requirements, or would have been graded significantly lower by the panel. According to the panel, it is possible to achieve an academic level in the theses, even if they are worth only 6 EC. And the necessary changes and improvement can in the panel s opinion be made quickly and straightforwardly. It is in the light of encouraging further development and growth of the programmes that the panel would like to see some changes regarding the assessment policy, the thesis procedure and the thesis assessment standards. It is confident that both programmes are capable of making adjustments and improving the outcome in the short term, which will ultimately help them to increase their international reputation further. Conclusion The audit panel assesses the master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. as unsatisfactory. The audit panel assesses the master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. as unsatisfactory. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 27

28 28 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

29 Appendices QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 29

30 30 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

31 Appendix 1: Curricula vitae of the members of the audit panel Prof. dr. P. L. C. (Paul) Torremans is professor of Intellectual Property Law at the School of Law at the University of Nottingham (the United Kingdom), since He holds degrees in Law from the universities of Leuven and Leicester and Torremans was employed by the universities of Leicester and Leeds before joining the university of Nottingham. His main research interests are Intellectual Property and Private International Law. His recent publications include J.J. Fawcett and P.LC. Torremans, Intellectual Property and Private International Law, OUP (2nd ed, 2011) and P. Torremans, Holyoak and Torremans Intellectual Property Law, OUP (7th ed, 2013). Dr. D. (Derk) Visser studied physics at the universities of Enschede, Oxford and Groningen, obtaining a PhD cum laude. Visser did research in the Philips Research Laboratories in Eindhoven, a.o. in the field of CD and DVD players, and drafted the world standard for the CD-Rom and the template for the DVD standard. He became patent attorney in the patent department of Philips Electronics and works since 2005 as partner for the London firm EIP. Visser gives seminars with the European Patent Office, teaches Patent Law in many European cities and is the author of the best seller The Annotated European Patent Convention. Dr. Ir. T. (Tony) Tangena is the president of epi (Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office) and chairs the Stichting Beroepsopleiding Octrooigemachtigden (SBO), the organisation that trains to become Dutch patent attorney. Tangena has worked for more than 30 years form Philips Electronics, last as senior vice president in the Philips Intellectual Property & Standards department. He took an early retirement from Philips in April 2009, and started his own company: Tangena & Van kan, specialising in patent valuation and patent portfolio management. Prof. dr. M. (Manuel) Desantes is professor of Law at the University of Alicante (Spain), since Since 2010, he is a member of counsel of the IP firm ELZABURU, and from 2011 onwards, he has been the vice-president of the Spanish Jury of Design. In the past, Desantes served as vice-president and president in acting of the University of Alicante ( ). He also used to be a member of the Legal Service of the European Commission, responsible for Intellectual Property and Electronic Commerce ( ). Between , he was the vice-president of the European Patent Office. Desantes founded the Magister Lvcentinvs (Intellectual Property and Information Technology Master's Degree) at the University of Alicante, of which he was the director as well ( ). Since 1998, Desantes is a fellow of the Eisenhower Foundation, and author of seven books and more than fifty articles regarding Private International Law, Intellectual Property Law and Information Technology Law. R. (Rosa) Kindt, BSc. is currently a Legal Research Master student at Utrecht University, with special interest in Copyright Law and other intellectual property related fields of law. She has been affiliated to the Centrum voor Intellectuele Eigendomsrecht (CIER) as student assistant for over two and a half years now, where she assists in research into all fields of intellectual property law. Kindt is also an editor on the board of Ars Aequi, a legal scientific journal. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 31

32 32 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

33 Appendix 2: Domain-specific framework of reference The IPKM programme distinguishes itself from existing master programmes offered at other European universities, or professional training offered by national patent organisations. The unique character of the master Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management lies in the combination of: 1) an integrated approach to teaching intellectual property law in the context of policy questions and knowledge management issues; 2) a unique experience of learning jointly, graduates with a degree in law together with graduates with a degree in science or medicine, about the role of IP law in commerce, research and innovation policy; 3) the emphasis on practice and academia through problem based learning; and 4) an appropriate mix of specialist courses tailored to the background of the student and common core courses mandatory for all. This combination of factors ensures that graduates are equipped to work not only as lawyers, but also as intermediaries with patent agents and managers in innovative companies and research institutes. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 33

34 34 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

35 Appendix 3: Intended learning outcomes The following intended learning outcomes have been formulated: 1) a. Graduates of the advanced master intellectual property and knowledge management LL.M. will hold an expertise on the legal and commercial aspects of IPR and knowledge management, acquiring skills to work at an academic level in a European and/or transnational legal and policy environment in close interaction with colleagues holding a degree in science and technology. In addition to their legal training, LLM students will be well versed with concepts such as entrepreneurship, valorization, and knowledge management, and the role of IP law in commerce, research and innovation policy. They will be well versed with concepts such as patent and trademark litigation, international and European IP law, international IP treaties, judicial proceedings and jurisprudence, etc.. b. Graduates of the advanced master intellectual property and knowledge management M.Sc. have the knowledge will hold an expertise on the scientific, economic and commercial aspects of knowledge creation, protection and commercialization. They will acquire the relevant skills to work at an academic level in international, multicultural environment is European patent agents, national patent agents, officials of the European patent office or other European or international governmental and non-governmental organizations in the field of intellectual property and knowledge management in close interaction with colleagues holding a degree in law. They will be well versed with concepts such as entrepreneurship, valorization and knowledge management, patent drafting and procedure, and the role of patent drafting for the purpose of commercial strategies and international patent litigation. 2) Graduates are able to apply the knowledge and skills obtained by defining, analysing and solving complex problems, especially at the interface of law, innovation, culture, competition, and science and technology. They are flexible and can easily adapt to new situations, both at the level of substantive intellectual property law as well as in the unlocking and exchange of information on national, regional and international law and policy for cultural, intellectual, and industrial creativity. They have written an academically sound masters thesis based on independent research. They are able to express themselves clearly in both oral and written form at an academic and professional level. 3) Graduates have been trained in formulating and articulating their conclusions so as to reflect an open-minded but critical and scientific attitude. They have learned to distinguish between ethical, economic, policy and legal arguments and take account of different, sometimes conflicting interests. They are able to synthesise different points of view into a legally relevant, academically sound conclusion. 4) Graduates have learned how to cooperate at a professional and academic level and have gained experience in playing different parts in teams comprised of lawyers, economists, social scientists, and participants holding a degree in science and technology. They are able to comprehend legal texts and judgements, as well as the legal significance of registered rights, most notably inventions disclosed in patent documents. They are able to convey their understanding to, and exchange views on the relevant issues with a professional or non-professional audience. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 35

36 36 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

37 Appendix 4: Overview of the curricula IPKM PROGRAMMES OVERVIEW COMMON CORE TRACKS LLM and MSc LLM MSc PERIOD Mandatory Optional (minimum 3) Mandatory Optional (3 min./4 max.) Mandatory Optional (3 min./4 max.) Period 1 - Principles of Global Policy and IP and Life Starts first Intellectual and Economics of IP Sciences Monday of Industrial Property Law Law (2 ECTS) September (5 ECTS) (2 ECTS) Period 2 - Copyright and related rights (5 ECTS) - Law of Trade Marks and Unfair Competition (5 ECTS) - Patent Law I (5 ECTS) Start master thesis Period 3 EPC Procedure (2 ECTS) Comparative IP Litigation Germany, France, UK, Belgium, Netherlands IP Enforcement and Procedure (2 ECTS) EPC claim drafting and interpretation (mechanics and chemical) IP and Computer Science (copyright and patents) (2 ECTS) QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 37

38 LLM and MSc LLM MSc PERIOD Mandatory Optional (minimum 3) Mandatory Optional (3 min./4 max.) Mandatory Period 4 - Patent Law II (3 ECTS) Period 5 - Copyright and Designs (5 ECTS) Intensive IP in Asia 1 (3 ECTS) Annual IEEM IP Master Classes, Macao (2 ECTS) Intensive IP in the USA 1 (3 ECTS) Comparative IP Litigation Germany, France, UK, Belgium, Netherlands (4 ECTS) - Trade Marks, Copyright and Designs (3 ECTS) Technology Transfer and Franchising Law (2 ECTS) Managing and Financing IP (2 ECTS) EPC claim drafting and interpretation (mechanics and chemical) (4 ECTS) Optional (3 min./4 max.) Claim drafting and Interpretation: EPC v US (Chemistry & Mechanics) (2 ECTS) EPC Opposition (2 ECTS) - Competition Law (2 ECTS) - Entrepreneurship, IP Management and Valorisation (5 ECTS) Period 6 Mock trial intensive 2 Master Thesis (6 ECTS) Master Thesis (6 ECTS) (2 ECTS) The end of the IPKM Programme and the Closing Ceremony is foreseen in June 1. The IP in the USA / Asia modules covering trade marks, patents, and copyright, are offered subject to speaker availability. This means that the time and format of the courses may vary, including the option to offer an intensive format combining several topics. 2. The 6th period is intended for the master thesis, no courses are offered, but it is possible to attend a domestic or alternative programme featuring mock trail competitions. 3. Excursions to Munich (EPO), The Hague (EPO Rijswijk), Geneva (WTO and WIPO), and Alicante (OHIM) may be planned during the year. 38 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

39 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 39

40 40 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

41 Appendix 5: Quantitative data regarding the programmes Data on intake, transfers and graduates LLM fulltime Intake Graduation within 1 year 2 years 3 years not yet graduated n.a o n.a. 1 2 o Not yet definite: State of Affairs December 2013 LLM parttime Intake Graduation within 2 years 3 years not yet graduated oo n.a. n.a. 1 oo graduated in October 2013 MSc fulltime Intake Graduation within 1 year 2 years 3 years not yet graduated n.a. n.a. 2 MSc parttime Intake Graduation within 2 years 3 years not yet graduated o n.a. n.a. 1 o Not yet definite: State of Affairs December n.a.: not applicable yet QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 41

42 Teacher-student ratio achieved Year Academic Staff Number of Students highest intake sofar actual number 2012/ hours = 0,9 f.t.e hours = 0,9 f.t.e. LLM MSc Total Student / Staff ratio 25 1 / / 23.3 Average amount of face-to-face instruction per stage of the study programme Common Core LLM modules MSc modules Expert Lectures/ Round Table Seminar Study Trips Thesis Supervision LLM MSc Total 42 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

43 Appendix 6: Programme of the site visit Visiting timetable Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management (LL.M. & M.Sc.) Thursday February 27 th Preparatory meeting (critical reflection + theses), reading additional documentation + lunch Interview with the management Break Interview with students MSc Interview with students LLM Break Interview with teachers MSc Prof. A. Kamperman Sanders programme director Dr. C. Mulder programme management team Dr. R. Wolleswinkel director of studies, all programmes Danielle Champagne MSc student 1 st year, parttime Namrata Sakhrani MSc student, 1 st year, parttime Patrick Smit MSc student, 2 nd year, parttime Di Zhu MSc student, 2 nd year, parttime Vishal Nallan Chakravarthy LLM student, 1 st year Pei Zhang LLM student, 1 st year Claudia Ferrari LLM student, 1 st year Roberta Moraes LLM student, 1 st year Marcus Korn LLM student, 1 st year Prof. D.Townend IP and Life Sciences Mr. T. Sterken QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 43

44 EPC Claim Drafting and Interpretation Mr. Y. Skulikaris IP and Computer Sciences Interview with teachers LLM Prof. M. Pugatch Entrepreneurship, IP Management and Valorisation Mr. K. Haft Patent Law II Break Interview with alumni MSc Lara Wills MSc alumna Mirjam Jacobs MSc alumna Benjamin Ko MSc alumnus Krishnamani Jayaraman MSc alumnus Nadeen Nusair MSc alumna Interview with alumni LLM Jacques Stemmet LLM alumnus Veli Hoti LLM alumnus Mariia Parubets LLM alumna Duygu Yılmaz LLM alumna Arber Gjunkshi LLM alumnus Friday February 28 th Interview with the Programme Committee Dr. Mieke Olaerts staff member, chair programme committee English taught programmes Dr. Janwillem Oosterhuis staff member Mr. Sascha Hardt staff member 44 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

45 M. Bettelheim student member Karlijn van der Heijden student member Hannah Jans student member Open office hour + internal meeting of the audit panel Interview with the Board of Examiners Prof. A. Kamperman Sanders chair Dr. C. Mulder member Extra interview regarding theses Prof. A. Kamperman Sanders Dr. C. Mulder Lunch and internal meeting of the audit panel Final interview with the management (including the dean) Prof. H. Schneider dean Drs. M. van Dongen faculty director Prof. A. Kamperman Sanders programme director Internal meeting of the audit panel Presentation of preliminary findings QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 45

46 46 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

47 Appendix 7: Theses and documents studied by the audit panel Prior to the site visit, the audit panel studied the theses of students with the following student numbers: (LL.M.) (LL.M.) (M.Sc.) (M.Sc.) (LL.M.) (LL.M.) (M.Sc.) (M.Sc.) (LL.M.) (LL.M.) (M.Sc.) (M.Sc.) (LL.M.) (LL.M.) (M.Sc.) (M.Sc.) (LL.M.) (LL.M.) (M.Sc.) (M.Sc.) In addition, the audit panel studied the portfolio s of students with the following student numbers: (LL.M.) (M.Sc.) (LL.M.) (M.Sc.) (LL.M.) (M.Sc.) (LL.M.) (M.Sc.) (LL.M.) (M.Sc.) During the site visit, the audit panel studied, among other things, the following documents (partly as hard copies, partly via the institute s electronic learning environment): Subject-specific reference framework and the learning outcomes of the programmes; Overview of the curricula; Outline description of the curricula components; Teaching and examination regulations; Overview of allocated staff; List of the last 25 final projects or the final projects of the past two years; Overview of the contacts maintained with the professional field; Report on the institutional quality assurance assessment; Reports on consultations in relevant committees/bodies; Test questions with corresponding assessment criteria and requirements and a selection of actual administered tests and assessments; Selection of final projects with corresponding assessment criteria and requirements; Reference books and other learning materials; Summary and analysis of recent evaluation results and relevant management information; Documentation regarding teacher and student satisfaction. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 47

48 48 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

49 Appendix 8: Declarations of independence QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 49

50 50 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

51 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 51

52 52 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

53 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 53

54 54 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

55 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 55

56 56 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

57 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 57

58 58 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

59 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 59

60 60 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University