Just some background info from that document

Garmin timely apprised Complainants of its contentions regarding the impact of the December 2009 reexamination on domestic industry by stating that:

"Moreover, the '336 Patent was reissued with revised claims on December 15, 2009. Accordingly, the patent being relied on, and referenced in thecomplaint, is what controls, not the original patent. The reexam thus raises a number of issues, including damages in the light of intervening rights and-potentially more important within the domestic industry context-the time within which alleged domestic industry investments are evaluated."

………..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.