What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
INGRASSIA v. A. C. W. MFG. CORPORATION.
Circuit Court of Appeals. Second Circuit.
March 5, 1928.
No. 189.
1. Courts <§=3290 — Cause of action as to unfair competition, joined with patent infringement suit, held properly dismissed, in absence of diversity of citizenship.
In absence of diversity of citizenship between litigants, cause of action as to unfair competition, joined with patent infringement suit, held properly dismissed.
2. Patents <§=3310(0 — Cause of action for patent infringement, failing to allege statutory conditions for grant of patents, held insufficient (35 USCA §§ 31, 32; District Court rule 25).
Cause of action for patent infringement held insufficient for failure to allege that invention was not known or used in this country before invention or discovery, and not patented or described in any printed publication, or that for more than two years prior to application, it was not in public use or on sale, and that no application for foreign patent for invention was filed 12 months prior to filing application in this country, and that it was not abandoned, all of which is required under Rev. St. §§ 4886, 4887 (35 USCA, §§ 31, 32), and being necessary allegations of ultimate facts required by District Court rule 25. .
3. Patents <§=3310(1'/s) — Right of inventor claiming Infringement depends on affirmative pleading.
Inventor’s right in patent infringement suit depends on his pleading of necessary or ultimate facts to bring him within the statute on which his right depends.
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe United States for tbe Southern District of New-York.
Suit by Leon Ingrassia against tbe A. C. W. Manufacturing Corporation for infringement of patent and for unfair competition. Decree of dismissal, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Newell & Spencer, of New York City (George M. Dowe, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Wilfred S. Stachenfeld, of New York City (Irving M. Obrieght, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
PEE CURIAM.
There is no diversity óf citizenship, for the appellant is a citizen of New York and the appellee is a New York corporation. This bill sets forth infringement of patents, utility, notice, alleged infringement, threat thereof, and a prayer for damages, It also contains allegations, in a separate cause of action, for unfair competition on alleged copying of the size, stand, and shape of the appellant’s box and pads, the color of the label and advertising text, all of which is stated to be trading upon the good will and good name of the appellant with intent to deceive the public. Injunction is sought for unfair competition, as well as for unlawful infringement of the patent. The bill of complaint was dismissed, because the cause of action as to the patent infringement was insufficiently alleged, and the cause of action as to unfair competition, because of lack of diversity of citizenship and want of jurisdiction.
This court and the District Courts of this circuit have consistently held that, in the absence of diversity of citizenship between the litigants, a patent infringement suit or a statutory trade-mark infringement may not he joined with a suit for unfair competition in trade. Gerrard v. Cary (D. C.) 9 F.(2d) 949, affd. (C. C. A.) 9 F.(2d) 957; Planten v. Gedney (C. C. A.) 224 F. 382; Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. (C. C. A.) 212 F. 156; Thaddeus Davids Co. v. Davids (C. C. A.) 192 F. 915; Matl. Casket Co. v. N. Y. & Bklyn. Casket Co. (C. C.) 185 F. 533. The Supreme Court has ruled likewise in Geneva Furniture Co. v. Karpen, 238 U. S. 254, 35 S. Ct. 788, 59 L. Ed. 1295; Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co., 220 U. S. 446, 31 S. Ct. 456, 55 L. Ed. 536; A. Leschen, etc., Co. v. Broderick Bascom, etc., Co., 201 U. S. 166, 26 S. Ct. 425, 50 L. Ed. 710. The cause of action as to unfair competition was properly dismissed.
The e.ause of action for patent, infringement is insufficient, for it does not allege that the invention was not owned or used in this "country before his invention or discovery thereof, and not patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country before the invention or discovery thereof, or that for more than two years pri- or to his application for a patent therefor it was not in public use or on sale in this country; that no application for a foreign patent for said invention was filed for more than 12 months prior to the filing of the application in this country, and that it was not abandoned; in other words, that it does not allege the conditions for the grant of patents provided for in sections 4886, 4887, of the United States Eevised Statutes (35 USCA §§ 31, 32; Comp. St. §§ 9430, 9431). These are necessary allegations of ultimate facts required by rule XXV of the District Court (198 E. xxv, 115 C. C. A. xxv). The inventor’s right depends upon his affirmative pleading of necessary or ultimate facts to bring him within the statute on which his right depends. American Laundry Machinery Co. v. Prosperity Co. (C. C. A.) 295 F. 819; Bayley & Sons, Inc., v. Braunstein Bros. (D. C.) 237 F. 671; Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Davie (C. C.) 100 F. 85.
The hill of complaint was insufficient. Decree affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0