opinion: SIGNALITE FUSE CO. v. FUSE INDICATOR CORPORATION.
  No. 9783.
  United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
  Argued Feb. 23, 1949.
  Decided May 5, 1949.
  Paul Kolisch, New York City (Darby & Darby, New York City, E. Ennalls, Berl, Wilmington, Delaware, J. Pierre Kolisch, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
  No oral argument for appellee (Paul Knox, Albany, N. Y., Ulle C. Linton, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for ap-pellee.
  Before GOODRICH, WALLER, and McLaughlin, circuit judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  This appeal must be dismissed because the controversy between the parties, if any ever existed, has now become moot. The Trial Court held that there was no infringment by Signalite, the plaintiff in the declaratory judgment suit. The defendant did not appeal from this finding. So far as this patent is concerned, therefore, plaintiff’s fuse is free from attack by the defendant. And, of course, there cannot be any issue of damages for past conduct in the absence of infringement.
  The Smalley patent, concerned in this controversy, was issued March 22, 1932 and expired March 22, 1949. 35 U.S.C.A. § 40. The plaintiff, then, has been adjudged not to have been an infringer during the life of the patent and it certainly cannot become one now that the patent has expired. We see no case or controversy between the parties and the litigation between them, therefore, must end. See Cover v. Schwartz, 2 Cir., 1942, 133 F.2d 541, 546, certiorari denied 1943, 319 U.S. 748, 63 S.Ct. 1158, 87 L.Ed. 1703.
  The appeal will be dismissed.
instruction: 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 "manufacturing". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto chemical drug food processing oil refining textile electronic alcohol or tobacco other unclear