On May 31 Confidential Orders 61 & 62 showed up on the ITC website.

On June 7 61 & 62 showed up as public versions

In order 61 Denying Complainants motion for Reconsideration and for Leave to rely on Certain Evidence in support of their Domestic Industry, the ALJ clearly states that Complainants waited until "the eve of the hearing" to admit evidence of a domestic industry using PDS and PTSC expenses. Wouldn't it be safe to say that between May 31 Confidential order 61 and June 7 public version of 61, Complainants made a last ditch effort to support a Domestic Industry by using info from PDS and PTSC? Why else would the ALJ say, "on the eve of the hearing."

Summary Determination is another matter and. From order 62: "the moving party bears the initial burden of establishing that there is an absence of a genuine material fact and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. When such an initial showing is established, the burden shifts to the opposing party, who must set forth the specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. The ALJ finds that there are material facts in dispute (re: "entire" limitations) such that Summary Determination is inappropriate and a trial on the merits is warranted.

NO Summary Determination doesn't trump Domestic Industry in my opinion. I believe the ALJ still needed to decide during the hearing if TPL had enough evidence to support its domestic industry. If not, game over.

Corrections welcome