I would refer you once again to the argument made by Garmin against a domestic industry, for which any investment made by TPL prior to 2009, as I understand it, would have no meaning in this case.

………..Indeed, Complainants' own prehearing brief, demonstrates that Complainants understand the question laid out by Garmin regarding "the patent being relied on, and referenced in the complaint," and "the time within which alleged domestic industry investments are evaluated," i.e., whether TPL's alleged "investments in the licensing of the '336 patent and the MMP portfolio somehow 'do not count' because some of the claims of the '336 patent changed during prosecution." Complainants' Prehearing Brief at 222. Complainants' own patent and related reexamination documents reveal the predicate that none of the original claims remain in the reexamined patent now being asserted, thus leaving argument regarding application of the statute under those circumstances, including an evaluation of the nexus to the alleged investments to the asserted patent.(emphasis by me)