Hopefully, we have enough to overcome 1 and 2. Ron if you are reading, would you comment on this. I may be off base with my concerns and would appreciate your thoughts here or in a pm.

1) on May 23 Garmin filed a motion seeking leave to submit separate pre & post hearing briefs on a discrete issue (addressing the impact of the Dec 2009 336' PTO re-exam on the existence of the complainants' alleged Domestic Industry) which Garmin alone asserted

2)Order 61 which I referenced in my last post speaks to the fact that the Complainants' made a tactical decision before the investigation began to rely solely on TPL's investments to support their domestic industry claims. Furthermore, " the Administrative Law Judge finds that Complainants have not identified any change in circumstances that would make it manifestly unfair to deny allowing them to now rely on investments by PDS and Patriot."