Disclaimer: Chapter 11 of this book was intentionally written in a fictionalized narrative style, providing a thematic resolution to an otherwise factual account. As such, the work is categorized as a novel.
Legal proceedings titled Amron v. 3M (Case No. 23-cv-8959, E.D.N.Y.), originally filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, were appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Case No. 25-2401). On March 20, 2026, the Second Circuit denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as lacking an arguable basis in law or fact. On March 30, 2026, it denied reconsideration and denied leave to file an amended motion. The appeal concerned the legal effect of positions 3M first asserted in 2024 regarding the confidentiality provisions of the parties' 1998 Post-it Notes settlement agreement.
Appellant contends that claims arising from such later-asserted interpretations constitute a distinct legal wrong not subject to claim preclusion and that the district court's dismissal did not address these arguments on the merits.
Appellant further contends that the dismissal applied a standard inconsistent with the distinction between frivolousness and ultimate merits recognized in Neitzke v. Williams, and references statements in the district court record concerning the nature of the settlement provisions.
Appeal Update: "I'm appealing because the district court applied res judicata without recognizing that I only discovered the settlement's true one-sided nature when 3M's counsel explicitly argued to the court in 2024 that the confidentiality clause was intended to restrict only me, not them. For years, I reasonably believed confidentiality was mutual — that neither party could publicly discuss the settlement without consent. When 3M took the position in court filings that Clause 9 binds only me while they remain free to discuss it publicly, that revealed an interpretation I couldn't have known in 2016. My litigation consulting counsel believes this constitutes newly discovered facts that warrant a fresh examination of whether this Amron 3M Sticky Notes agreement should be enforced. I deserve the opportunity to prove this contract with 3M was fundamentally unfair and should be rescinded." — Alan Amron, Inventor
Appellant has petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States; the petition was docketed July 7, 2026 as Amron v. 3M Company, No. 26-5031, and is described below. It presents an unresolved question of federal law concerning the application of claim preclusion to claims predicated on a party's post-settlement conduct.
These proceedings remain ongoing, and no final determination has been made. Nothing in this disclaimer is intended to disclose or characterize the terms of the parties' 1998 Post-it Notes settlement agreement.
Supreme Court of the United States. Amron v. 3M Company, No. 26-5031 — petition for a writ of certiorari, filed April 21, 2026 and docketed July 7, 2026, seeking review of the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 25-2401, decided March 20, 2026, rehearing denied March 30, 2026.
3M's response was due August 6, 2026. As of this writing the docket shows no response filed and no request for additional time. Under the Court's rules a respondent may waive the right to respond; the petition is distributed to the Justices either way. The docket is public at supremecourt.gov, No. 26-5031.
The petition does not ask the Court to decide who invented the sticky note. It presents a question of federal law: whether claim preclusion can be extended to bar a claim based on conduct that did not yet exist when the prior litigation occurred.
For generations, claim preclusion has been understood to apply to claims that were raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier action. The question here is what happens when the conduct giving rise to a claim had not yet occurred, and therefore could not possibly have been raised. The decision below effectively holds that a litigant may be barred from challenging conduct that did not exist at the time of the prior litigation. If that principle is correct, it reaches far beyond my case — settlement agreements, licensing and confidentiality agreements, employment agreements, commercial contracts, consent decrees, and other continuing legal relationships that remain in effect long after litigation ends.
No litigant can be required to challenge conduct before that conduct exists. Yet the decision below effectively imposes that requirement.
Legal notice. The documents published on this site were filed in federal court in Amron v. 3M Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company, No. 16-80125 (S.D. Fla.), and in Amron v. 3M, CV-97-7281 (E.D.N.Y.). No court has ruled on the historical claims described here. The 1997 case settled on confidential terms; later suits were dismissed on the basis of that settlement rather than on the question of who invented the product. 3M disputes any connection and maintains that Post-it Notes were developed independently. Post-it is a registered trademark of 3M Company.
