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 dismissed the appeal in a summary order. On March 25, 2026, Appellant filed an Amended Petition for Panel Rehearing. The appeal concerns 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 I deserve the opportunity to prove this contract with 3M was fundamentally unfair and should be rescinded."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
If rehearing is denied, Appellant intends to petition the Supreme Court of the United States. The matter has been described by counsel experienced in Supreme Court practice as presenting 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.
