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:
R. HOE & CO., Inc., et al. v. GOSS PRINTING PRESS CO.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 22, 1929.
No. 46.
For the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals, see 30 F.(2d) 271.
John D. Morgan, of New York City, for the motion.
James J. Kennedy, of New York City, opposed.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
PEE CUEIAM.
We held in Page Machine Co. v. Dow, Jones & Co., 168 F. 703, that we would not require a patentee, whose claims we had held valid, to disclaim a claim found invalid by the Circuit Court. At that time the plaintiff had no appeal from an interlocutory decree of invalidity, and the effect of requiring a disclaimer was to make the decision of the Circuit Court final without review by us. If the patentee had had the appeal which he now has, the result need not have been the same, as Judge Westenhaver pointed out in Ensten v. Rich-Sampliner Co. (D. C.) 13 F.(2d) 132. It is the practice of the Sixth and Seventh Circuits to require disclaimer of those claims held invalid in the Circuit Court of Appeals as a condition of proceeding upon the valid claims. Herman v. Youngstown (C. C. A.) 191 F. 579, 587; Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Gilchrist Co. (C. C. A.) 253 F. 54; Higgin Mfg. Co. v. Watson (C. C. A.) 263 F. 378, 387; Excelsior, etc., Co. v. Williamson Heater Co. (C. C. A.) 269 F. 614, 619. We can see no distinction, whether a decree holding some of the claims invalid is affirmed, or this court in part reverses a decree holding them all valid. In each case the time is extended till the decision on appeal.
If this court’s decision were final, such a rule would be a corollary of O’Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 14 L. Ed. 601, Seymour v. McCormick, 19 How. 96, 15 L. Ed. 557, and Gage v. Herring, 107 U. S. 640, 2 S. Ct. 819, 27 L. Ed. 601. However, it is not final, if the Supreme Court chooses to grant certiorari. In that event, a disclaimer would destroy the patentee’s right to a review of our holding as to invalidity. The patentee should not be put to such a hazard, but should be as free to withhold his disclaimer, until his appeal to the Supreme Court is decided, as he is upon appeal to this court from the decree of the District Court.
The plaintiff at bar goes further, however, arguing that, even after denial of an application for Certiorari, the patentee should not be obliged to disclaim. It argues that the Circuit Court of Appeals of another circuit might disagree with our ruling, and the Supreme Court would then take the ease on certiorari and might declare the claims valid. A disclaimer would merely destroy this right, though the defendant is protected forever by its decree, and really has no interest in the disclaimer at all. While we acknowledge the difficulty and the possibility, it appears to us that so to extend the patentee’s time might result in avoiding the statute altogether. The patentee may not sue-again, or, if he does, the result may be the-same. It does not follow, because two Circuit Courts of Appeals have held the same-way, that a third will not disagree. Must the patentee disclaim at the conclusion of the-second suit, or may he wait until all nine circuits have passed upon his claims? The-question is at best of seasonable action, and-in practice there must be some end, short of exhausting all conceivable remedies. When the patent has once passed through all the courts then available, the statute should have its effect; else the putatively invalid claims-may remain as scarecrows, preserved against the bare possibility that at some future time-they may come to life.
The mandate will therefore be recalled- and amended, so as to require the plaintiff to-file a disclaimer within 30 days after the-time expires within which to petition for certiorari, or, if it does so petition, then within-30 days after denial, if it is denied, or affirmance of the decree, if it is granted, and the decree is affirmed.

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