The Legislature adopted Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 113 to recognize October 2025 as Intellectual Property Awareness Month in California. The text consists of a series of WHEREAS clauses describing the role of patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets in California’s economy and calls for education and outreach to help Californians understand IP rights and protections.
The resolution is a symbolic, promotional measure: it frames IP as central to the state’s creative and innovation ecosystem and asks the Assembly's Chief Clerk to transmit copies for distribution. It does not appropriate funds or amend existing law, but it creates an official, statewide occasion that public institutions and private organizations can use to coordinate trainings, events, and messaging about IP.
At a Glance
What It Does
ACR 113 formally designates October 2025 as Intellectual Property Awareness Month through a concurrent resolution that lists findings about IP’s role in California and encourages education and outreach. It includes a procedural clause directing the Chief Clerk of the Assembly to transmit copies of the resolution to the author for distribution.
Who It Affects
Creators, researchers, universities, startup incubators, law clinics, IP practitioners, economic development offices, and nonprofit educators are the primary audiences likely to act on the designation. State and local agencies may use the designation for calendars and public programming.
Why It Matters
Although ceremonial, the resolution creates an official calendar anchor that stakeholders can cite when planning trainings, workshops, and public awareness campaigns. It signals legislative support for IP-related outreach and thus can influence schedules, partnerships, and PR activity even without new funding or regulatory change.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
ACR 113 is a concurrent resolution — a legislative declaration adopted jointly by the Assembly and Senate — that places Intellectual Property Awareness Month on California’s official legislative calendar for October 2025. The text is almost entirely hortatory: a set of WHEREAS clauses that describe patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets as drivers of creativity, economic growth, and investment in the state, followed by a resolve clause establishing the month and a short procedural instruction to transmit copies of the resolution.
Because this is a resolution rather than a statute, it does not create legal rights, regulatory duties, or funding streams. Its practical effect is communicative: it gives state actors and external stakeholders a formal basis to promote programming, educational materials, and events tied to IP topics.
Universities, bar associations, business groups, and incubators typically use such designations to coordinate conferences, clinics, and public campaigns that they would otherwise run on ad hoc schedules.The resolution’s language emphasizes inclusion, diversity, and the role of IP in California’s creative industries; those emphases shape how organizations might frame outreach during October. Implementation will be decentralized: no single agency is named to organize activities, so execution depends on voluntary action by state offices, nonprofits, educational institutions, and private-sector partners.
Because the Legislature clocked the measure as having no fiscal committee referral, it contains no new appropriation or dedicated funding for outreach.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The measure is Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 113 (ACR 113), Chapter 195 of the 2025–2026 session.
The resolution was filed with the Secretary of State on September 23, 2025.
The Legislative Counsel’s digest records a fiscal committee determination of "NO," indicating no new state appropriation or identified fiscal impact in the text.
The WHEREAS clauses enumerate patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets and explicitly link IP awareness to inclusion, diversity, and California’s status as a global innovation leader—language that stakeholders can reuse in outreach materials.
The resolution directs the Chief Clerk of the Assembly to transmit copies of the resolution to the author for distribution, a routine procedural step to circulate the text.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Statement of findings about IP and the state’s role
This part contains a series of factual and aspirational findings: it defines IP categories (patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets), credits IP with driving technology, arts, and commerce, and highlights California’s leadership in filings, research institutions, and creative industries. For practitioners, these clauses matter because they set the thematic frame for any outreach tied to the month—materials and events will likely echo this language to align with the Legislature’s stated priorities.
Formal designation of Intellectual Property Awareness Month
This single-sentence clause declares October 2025 as Intellectual Property Awareness Month in California. As the operative text, it creates an official recognition but does not create enforceable duties, new regulatory standards, or budget authority. Its practical function is to provide a legislature-backed label organizations can cite when scheduling programming or publicity.
Procedural distribution instruction
The resolution concludes by instructing the Chief Clerk of the Assembly to transmit copies to the author for distribution. That is a standard, ministerial step to ensure the author and interested parties receive certified copies for dissemination; it imposes only minimal administrative work on legislative staff.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Independent creators and inventors — gain a visible, state-sanctioned occasion to publicize how to protect and commercialize their work and to reach audiences with IP-education targeted to small-scale creators.
- Universities and law clinics — receive a legislative cover for running workshops, pro bono clinics, and student programming that raise IP literacy without seeking new appropriations.
- IP service providers and professional associations — can align marketing, CLEs, and client outreach around the month, potentially increasing demand for services and public engagement.
- Economic development and startup support organizations — gain a promotional tool for investor outreach and tech-commercialization programming tied to a recognized month.
- Underrepresented and community-based arts organizations — the resolution’s explicit nod to inclusion and diversity provides rhetorical justification for targeted outreach to communities that may lack IP resources.
Who Bears the Cost
- Legislative and administrative staff — minimal time and copying/distribution costs associated with transmitting the resolution and maintaining legislative records.
- State and local agencies that opt to host programs — any events or materials they produce will require staff time and budget from existing resources because the resolution does not provide funding.
- Nonprofits and educational institutions asked to deliver outreach — they may absorb program costs or seek private sponsorship to run workshops and clinics tied to the recognition.
- Small IP clinics and legal aid providers — increased demand for assistance during the month could strain limited pro bono capacity unless paired with additional resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is symbolic recognition versus substantive change: the Legislature can signal support for IP awareness at low political and fiscal cost, but without funding, a coordinating agency, or accompanying policy, the designation risks being a publicity tool rather than a driver of measurable outreach, equitable access, or legal reform.
The resolution is purely hortatory: it communicates legislative priorities but does not create statutory authority, funding, or enforcement mechanisms. That limits direct policy impact; any substantive increase in IP protections, enforcement, or access programs would require separate statutory or budgetary action.
Because no state entity is charged with coordination, the scale and reach of activities tied to the month will depend entirely on voluntary uptake by external organizations and existing agency priorities.
Another tension lies between promoting IP protection and preserving public access and fair use. The resolution emphasizes IP’s economic and creative benefits and encourages respect for originality, but it contains no language about balancing enforcement with education on limitations of IP rights, exceptions for research and teaching, or support for open access.
That framing could skew outreach toward rights-holders and enforcement perspectives unless stakeholders deliberately include access-oriented content. Finally, the absence of funding or a designated lead complicates measurement: there is no mechanism in the text to track whether outreach occurred, evaluate its reach, or ensure that the promised focus on inclusion and diversity produces concrete outcomes rather than rhetorical claims.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.