Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-915_pol1.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

of legal errors, then it does not always require knowledge of 
the misrepresentation in the registration application, and 
therefore  does  not  require  the  typical  elements  of  fraud.  
Thus,  the  “knowledge”  question  that  the  parties  have  ar-
gued,  and  which  we  decide,  was  a  “subsidiary  question 
fairly  included”  in  the  petition’s  question  presented.    See 
this Court’s Rule 14.1(a). 
  As  to  the  decision  below,  the  Ninth  Circuit  wrote  that 
“the knowledge inquiry is not whether Unicolors knew that 
including  a  mixture  of  confined  and  non-confined  designs 
would  run  afoul  of  the  single-unit  registration  require-
ments; the inquiry is merely whether Unicolors knew that 
certain designs included in the registration were confined 
and, therefore, were each published separately to exclusive 
customers.”  959 F. 3d, at 1200.  In context, we understand 
this  statement  to  hold  that  Unicolors’  “knowledge”  of  the 
facts that produced the inaccuracy was sufficient to demon-
strate  its  knowledge  of  the  inaccuracy  itself  under 
§411(b)(1)(A).  Unicolors’ knowledge of the relevant law was 
irrelevant.  The Ninth Circuit therefore explicitly addressed 
the question we here decide. 

* 

  * 
  For these reasons,  the judgment  of  the  Ninth Circuit  is 
vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings 
consistent with this opinion. 

  * 

It is so ordered.