Patent.
Construction of claim did not bar defense that the order of operations was changed, as the construction implied the prior sequence.
De minimis differences in the two devices do not compel a finding of equivalence, as the changes should be considered relative to the portion of the device devoted to the function.
JMOL finding of no invalidity rested on an improper late construction of the claim.
(Or something like, or utterly unlike, that.)
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1437.Opinion.1-6-2016.1.PDF
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.