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:
COASTAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SYMBOLIC DISPLAYS, INC., and Gerald A. Curl, Defendants and Appellees.
No. 26703.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 4, 1972.
John E. Kelly (argued), Ralph B. Pas-toriza, of Pastoriza & Kelly, Santa Monica, Cal., for plaintiff and appellant.
Grover A. Frater (argued), Harvey C. Nienow, of Nienow & Frater, Santa Ana, Cal., for defendants and appellees.
Before CHAMBERS and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and COPPLE, District Judge.
Honorable William P. Copple, United States i nation. strict Judge, Phoenix, Arizona, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
The summary judgment of the district court that Coastal Dynamics design patent 208,474 on a miniature electric lamp is invalid is affirmed.
As a general rule, summary judgments in patent cases do not fare well, except experience does show they are sometimes appropriate in design patents which usually do not involve complicated factual situations. We find this case to be one where it was justified.
It is asserted by Coastal Dynamics that the trial court failed to find either way on its issue of “assignor estoppel.”
We are satisfied that by inference he did rule that the point was without merit and such a result is required by the dicta in Lear, Incorporated v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 89 S.Ct. 1905, 23 L. Ed.2d 610, wherein licensee estoppel is considered. We are not persuaded that assignor estoppel requires any different rule. So no purpose could be served by a remand for an express ruling- on assignor estoppel on the facts of this case.

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