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.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "unclear". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
HOOVER et al. v. ECKERD’S CUT RATE MEDICINE CO., Inc.
No. 4892.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Feb. 10, 1933.
Duell, Dunn & Anderson, of New York City (Daniel H. Kane and Clifford E. Dunn, both of New York City, and George N. Davis, of Wilmington, Del, of counsel), for appellants.
Frank H. Borden, of Washington, D. C. (Robert S. Allyn and Edward S. Higgins, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
The two tooth paste patents Nos. 1,222,-144 and 1,225,362 here involved have been discussed at full length and in much detail by the comprehensive opinion ■ of the court below. (D. G.) 53 F.(2d) 215, 216. Having been given such full attention and discussion, as they can fairly ask for, and finding bur-selves in accord with the views of the court below, there is no warrant for this court enlarging the reeord by a further discussion, which would simply he an effort on our part to state in different words what the court below has sufficiently and accurately' so done! The underlying consideration affecting the two patents was to provide a tooth paste that will calcify the teeth and “the ‘gist of the invention is to provide a calcifying dentifrice’ ” which would artificially do what natural saliva does and prevent dental decay. This contention the plaintiff sought by experiment and proof to establish, but, in view of testimony to the contrary, the court below, and we agree therewith, held “that -the nature or extent of the porosity of the teeth, the existence of which is necessary to support plaintiffs’ theory of artificial calcification of the teeth, is in the realm of debatable theory.” That court accepted, and we think rightly, the view of the defendant’s expert, who testified : “I do not consider those tests, as carried out, fair at all, or representative of what happens in the month. They were made Under conditions such as can never obtain in the mouth. In the first place, let me say that these tests were made on dead teeth, and it is admitted that there may be' metabolic changes in the teeth, so that there must be some difference in the teeth when they are dead and out, and the teeth when they, are still in our gums connected with the nerve. ■* * * He added saliva in his weighing experiments from time to time and in that fashion, of course, obtained the reaction which was in no wise representative of any reaction in the mouth. So-1 would say these tests are in no way comparable to anything that takes place in the mouth, and are of no value to determine whether there is any calcifying action or not,” — and held that “a calcifying dentifrice that will not calcify is of no- use. It is inoperable and therefore not useful.”
Without going - into further detail, and without reference to other matters 'discussed, we limit ourselves to holding, in accord with the opinion below, that the bill was rightly dismissed. .

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "unclear". What subcategory of business best describes this litigant?

Choices:
auto industry
chemical industry
drug industry
food industry
oil & gas industry
clothing & textile industry
electronic industry
alcohol and tobacco industry
other
unclear

Answer: 9