原告：岳东晓博士, Pro Se
被告律师：Jedediah Wakefield， Fenwick & West LLP合伙人、知识产权诉讼组主席
法官：Elizabeth D. Laporte, U.S. Magistrate Judge
法庭：U.S. Federal District Court, Northern District of California，旧金山
时间：2008年7月22日
过程：法官询问美国最高法院最新的一个案例，被告律师茫然不知，岳东晓据案例力争

辩论记录（节选）

MR. YUE: The procedure is for the plaintiff to move for 60(b) motion in the District Court. If the judge indicated he would grant the motion, then, I would go to the Ninth Circuit and seek a remand. So at this point --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. YUE: You know --

THE COURT: I mean, all of that would be very unusual, but it's still a possibility. Now, let me ask, on -- the Supreme Court recently ruled on an issue having to do with nonparty preclusion in the Taylor versus Sturgell case; did that in any way affect the basis for Judge Jenkins's ruling, basically, that there was preclusion against the plaintiff? I know he had two bases, one of which was privity, and I'm not sure that that was affected at all. Possibly the intertwining basis was affected.

MR. WAKEFIELD: I'll have to confess that I haven't studied the Sturgell decision,...（承认不知道美高院判例）

THE COURT: Um-hmm.

MR. YUE: Your Honor, I think the Taylor versus Sturgell case did disapprove the legal grounds for precluding me from this litigation. I was a nonparty to the -- Netbula versus Sun. And, the whole ground by Judge Jenkins was the theory of virtual representation. And, in my papers, I argue that I could not be virtually represented by Netbula because I was already precluded --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. YUE: -- from that case.