The America Invents Act (AIA) created inter partes review (IPR) proceedings as a streamlined, agency-based alternative to costly and time-consuming district court litigation for resolving questions of patent validity. To achieve the desired efficiencies, Congress recognized that IPRs would need to replace—not duplicate—district court validity proceedings. Accordingly, the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) preclude a petitioner from later challenging the same claims on “any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised" during an IPR that resulted in a final written decision on patentability. IPR proceedings have proliferated as parties attempt to resolve patent disputes faster and cheaper. Many of those disputes are now returning to the district court as IPRs and related appeals are completed. The courts are grappling with estoppel and several other critical issues like the extent to which courts are bound by claim constructions in IPR proceedings. In this webinar, attorneys Kevin Moran and Marshall Schmitt will explore such issues confronting the courts and provide practical advice about how to account for these issues as petitioners and patent owners adapt to the post-AIA world.