Exhibit B
`U.S. Patent No. 8,312,286
`Westin Stonebriar
`
`Evidence
`
` A
`
`Claim
`Language
`Claim 1
`A network
`transmitting
`system,
`comprising:
`a first
`networking
`device,
`transmitting
`an
`unencrypted
`first wireless
`network
`stream from
`a first
`location,
`said first
`wireless
`network
`stream
`requiring a
`first key in
`order to
`access
`content in
`said first
`wireless
`
`
`On information and belief, Westin Stonebriar’s accused instrumentalities include a first networking device, transmitting an
`unencrypted first wireless network stream from a first location, said first wireless network stream requiring a first key in order to
`access content in said first wireless network stream, and said first wireless network stream, when accessed using said first key,
`providing a first level of access to network resources; wherein said first level of access to network resources provided by said first
`wireless network stream does not include access to information on a server, and allows access to one or more specific webpages
`without said first key but does not allow access to a second subset of webpages without said first key, and allows access to
`additional webpages including said second subset of webpages with said first key.
`
` first wireless network stream comprises “WESTIN-GUEST” broadcast from a device with a MAC address of 00:3A:99:02:1F:80.
`As shown in the screenshot below, a network named WESTIN-GUEST is broadcasted from a device with a MAC address of
`00:3A:99:02:1F:80. At least eight other “WESTIN-GUEST” networks are broadcast from devices with different MAC addresses
`within the Westin Stonebriar property. All nine networks named WESTIN-GUEST are “Open,” which means unencrypted.
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 1
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`network
`stream, and
`said first
`wireless
`network
`stream,
`when
`accessed
`using said
`first key,
`providing a
`first level of
`access to
`network
`resources;
`wherein said
`first level of
`access to
`network
`resources
`provided by
`said first
`wireless
`network
`stream does
`not include
`access to
`information
`on a server,
`and allows
`access to
`one or more
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 2
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`specific
`webpages
`without said
`first key but
`does not
`allow access
`to a second
`subset of
`webpages
`without said
`first key, and
`allows
`access to
`additional
`webpages
`including
`said second
`subset of
`webpages
`with said
`first key;
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 3
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 4
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`
`On information and belief, the other WESTIN-GUEST devices shown above similarly meet this claim limitation.
`
`The Legacy Stonebriar entities and Starwood admitted in their Answers that “a device with a MAC address of 00:3A:99:02:1F:80
`is associated with the name ‘WESTIN-GUEST’ and that at least eight other devices with different MAC addresses are also
`associated with the name ‘WESTIN-GUEST’” on the Westin Stonebriar property. (Legacy Stonebriar Hotel, Ltd. and Legacy
`Stonebriar Hotel II, Ltd.’s Answer, Affirm. Defs., and Counterclaims [sic] to Pl. Lone Star WiFi’s Complaint, at ¶ 95; Def. Starwood
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 5
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.’s Answer to Pl.’s Compl. for Patent Infringement, at ¶ 95.)
`
`The Westin Stonebriar website admits: “Plano hotel, guest room amenities: … High Speed wired and wireless internet access.”
`http://www.westinstonebriar.com/accommodations.html
`
`WESTIN-GUEST displays the below initial webpage which requires a “Last Name” and “Room Number” as a key before allowing
`access to additional webpages on the Internet.
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 6
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 7
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`
`If you select “Enter an Access Code,” WESTIN-GUEST displays the below webpage that requires an “Access Code” as a key.
`
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 8
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`
`The Legacy Stonebriar entities and Starwood admitted in their Answers that “a device with a MAC address of 00:3A:99:02:1F:80
`is associated with the name ‘WESTIN-GUEST’ and that users at The Westin Stonebriar Hotel can obtain access to one or more
`webpages with certain active access codes or last names and room numbers.” (Legacy Stonebriar Hotel, Ltd. and Legacy
`Stonebriar Hotel II, Ltd.’s Answer, Affirm. Defs., and Counterclaims [sic] to Pl. Lone Star WiFi’s Complaint, at ¶ 99; Def. Starwood
`Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.’s Answer to Pl.’s Compl. for Patent Infringement, at ¶ 99.)
`
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 9
`
`

`

`Evidence
`
` A
`
`Claim
`Language
`
`a second
`networking
`device,
`transmitting
`an
`unencrypted
`second
`wireless
`network
`stream from
`an area
`overlapping
`in the same
`space as the
`first
`networking
`device, said
`second
`wireless
`network
`stream
`controlling
`access with
`a second
`key, and
`
`WESTIN-GUEST broadcast from a device with a MAC address of 00:3A:99:02:1F:80 does not provide access to information on a
`Westin Stonebriar server.
`
`Lone Star WiFi presently asserts that this claim element is literally present. To the extent that this claim element is found to not
`literally meet the claim element, Lone Star WiFi contends that the instrumentality identified herein is insubstantially different
`from the claimed invention of the associated patent-in-suit and therefore would infringe under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`On information and belief, Westin Stonebriar’s accused instrumentalities include a second networking device, transmitting an
`unencrypted second wireless network stream from an area overlapping in the same space as the first networking device, said
`second wireless network stream controlling access with a second key, and providing a second level of access to network
`resources in order to access said second wireless network stream, wherein said second level of access to network resources
`provided by said second wireless network stream does not include access to the information on the server, and allows access to
`the internet including said second subset of webpages with said second key.
`
` second wireless network stream comprises “WESTIN-MEETING” broadcast from a device with a MAC address of
`00:3A:98:E6:07:80. As shown in the screenshot below, a network named “WESTIN-MEETING” is broadcasted from a device with
`a MAC address of 00:3A:98:E6:07:80. At least ten other devices with different MAC addresses also transmit a network named
`WESTIN-MEETING within the Westin Stonebriar property. All eleven networks named WESTIN-MEETING are “Open,” which
`means unencrypted.
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 10
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`providing a
`second level
`of access to
`network
`resources in
`order to
`access said
`second
`wireless
`network
`stream,
`wherein said
`second level
`of access to
`network
`resources
`provided by
`said second
`wireless
`network
`stream does
`not include
`access to
`the
`information
`on the
`server, and
`allows
`access to
`the internet
`including
`said second
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 11
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`subset of
`webpages
`with said
`second key.
`
`Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 12
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 13
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`
`On information and belief, the other WESTIN-MEETING devices shown above similarly meet this claim limitation.
`
`The Legacy Stonebriar entities and Starwood admitted in their Answers that “a device with a MAC address of 00:3A:98:E6:07:80
`is associated with the name ‘WESTIN-MEETING’ and that at least ten other devices with different MAC addresses are also
`associated with the name ‘WESTIN-MEETING’” on the Westin Stonebriar property. (Legacy Stonebriar Hotel, Ltd. and Legacy
`Stonebriar Hotel II, Ltd.’s Answer, Affirm. Defs., and Counterclaims [sic] to Pl. Lone Star WiFi’s Complaint, at ¶ 97; Def. Starwood
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 14
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.’s Answer to Pl.’s Compl. for Patent Infringement, at ¶ 97.)
`
`The Westin Stonebriar website admits: “[a]ll of our meeting facilities feature high-speed wired and wireless Internet access,
`videoconferencing capabilities, satellite and T-1 line connections, and the support of our superb onsite audio/video staff.”
`http://www.westinstonebriar.com/meetings.html
`
`WESTIN-MEETING broadcast from a device with a MAC address of 00:3A:98:E6:07:80 overlaps with WESTIN-GUEST broadcast
`from a device with a MAC address of 00:3A:99:02:1F:80 as shown in the screenshot because they are accessible from the same
`location.
`
`WESTIN-MEETING displays the below initial webpage without a key. The webpage requires an “Access Code” before allowing
`access to additional webpages on the Internet. As shown below, WESTIN-MEETING also displays a “Terms” and a “Need Help
`Connecting” webpage prior to entry of a key.
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 15
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 16
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`
`The Legacy Stonebriar entities and Starwood admitted in their Answers that “a device with a MAC address of 00:3A:98:E6:07:80
`is associated with the name ‘WESTIN-MEETING’ and that users at The Westin Stonebriar Hotel can obtain access to one or more
`webpages with certain active access codes.” (Legacy Stonebriar Hotel, Ltd. and Legacy Stonebriar Hotel II, Ltd.’s Answer, Affirm.
`Defs., and Counterclaims [sic] to Pl. Lone Star WiFi’s Complaint, at ¶ 103; Def. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.’s
`Answer to Pl.’s Compl. for Patent Infringement, at ¶ 103.)
`
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 17
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`The Legacy Stonebriar entities and Starwood admitted in their Answers that “a device with a MAC address of 00:3A:98:E6:07:80
`is associated with the name ‘WESTIN-MEETING’ and that users at The Westin Stonebriar Hotel can obtain access to one or more
`webpages with certain active access codes.” (Legacy Stonebriar Hotel, Ltd. and Legacy Stonebriar Hotel II, Ltd.’s Answer, Affirm.
`Defs., and Counterclaims [sic] to Pl. Lone Star WiFi’s Complaint, at ¶ 104; Def. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.’s
`Answer to Pl.’s Compl. for Patent Infringement, at ¶ 104.)
`
`WESTIN-MEETING broadcast from a device with a MAC address of 00:3A:98:E6:07:80 does not provide access to information on a
`Westin Stonebriar server.
`
`Alternatively, the second wireless stream comprises “WESTIN-LOBBY” is broadcast from a device with a MAC address of
`00:3A:99:05:90:50. At least two other devices with different MAC addresses also transmit a network named WESTIN-LOBBY
`within the Westin Stonebriar property. All three networks named WESTIN-LOBBY are “Open,” which means unencrypted.
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 18
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 19
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 20
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 21
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`
`On information and belief, the other WESTIN-LOBBY devices shown above similarly meet this claim limitation.
`
`The Legacy Stonebriar entities and Starwood admitted in their Answers that “a device with a MAC address of 00:3A:99:05:90:50
`is associated with the name ‘WESTIN-LOBBY’ and that at least two other devices with different MAC addresses are also
`associated with the name ‘WESTIN-LOBBY’” on the Westin Stonebriar property. (Legacy Stonebriar Hotel, Ltd. and Legacy
`Stonebriar Hotel II, Ltd.’s Answer, Affirm. Defs., and Counterclaims [sic] to Pl. Lone Star WiFi’s Complaint, at ¶ 96; Def. Starwood
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 22
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 22
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.’s Answer to Pl.’s Compl. for Patent Infringement, at ¶ 96.)
`
`The Westin Stonebriar website admits: “[w]e offer complimentary high-speed Internet access in all of our public areas to help
`you stay connected.” http://www.westinstonebriar.com/accommodations.html
`
`WESTIN-LOBBY is broadcast from a device with a MAC address of 00:3A:99:05:90:50 overlaps with WESTIN-GUEST broadcast
`from a device with a MAC address of 00:3A:99:02:1F:80 as shown in the screenshot because they are accessible from the same
`location.
`
`WESTIN-LOBBY displays the initial internet sites shown below without a key; allows access with an "Access Code"; and displays a
`“Terms” webpage prior to entry of a key.
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 23
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 23
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 24
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 24
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Evidence
`
`
`WESTIN-LOBBY does not allow access to a server.
`
`The Legacy Stonebriar entities and Starwood admitted in their Answers that “a device with a MAC address of 00:3A:99:05:90:50
`is associated with the name ‘WESTIN-LOBBY’ and that users at The Westin Stonebriar Hotel can obtain access to one or more
`webpages with certain active access codes.” (Legacy Stonebriar Hotel, Ltd. and Legacy Stonebriar Hotel II, Ltd.’s Answer, Affirm.
`Defs., and Counterclaims [sic] to Pl. Lone Star WiFi’s Complaint, at ¶ 101; Def. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.’s
`
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 25
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 25
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`
`Claim 2
`A system as
`in claim 1,
`wherein said
`first
`networking
`device and
`said second
`networking
`device are
`two
`separate
`devices
`which are
`physically in
`a same
`housing.
`
`Evidence
`
`Answer to Pl.’s Compl. for Patent Infringement, at ¶ 101.)
`
`The Legacy Stonebriar entities and Starwood admitted in their Answers that “a device with a MAC address of 00:3A:99:05:90:50
`is associated with the name ‘WESTIN-LOBBY’ and that The Westin Stonebriar Hotel provides complimentary Internet access in the
`lobby of The Westin Stonebriar Hotel.” (Legacy Stonebriar Hotel, Ltd. and Legacy Stonebriar Hotel II, Ltd.’s Answer, Affirm. Defs.,
`and Counterclaims [sic] to Pl. Lone Star WiFi’s Complaint, at ¶ 102; Def. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.’s Answer to
`Pl.’s Compl. for Patent Infringement, at ¶ 102.)
`
`WESTIN-LOBBY is broadcast from a device with a MAC address of 00:3A:99:05:90:50 does not provide access to information on a
`Westin Stonebriar server.
`
`Lone Star WiFi presently asserts that this claim element is literally present. To the extent that this claim element is found to not
`literally meet the claim element, Lone Star WiFi contends that the instrumentality identified herein is insubstantially different
`from the claimed invention of the associated patent-in-suit and therefore would infringe under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`
`On information and belief, Westin Stonebriar’s accused instrumentalities include wherein said first networking device and said
`second networking device are two separate devices which are physically in a same housing.
`
`Plaintiff requires the benefit of discovery before it can identify the accused instrumentality that meets this claim limitation. At
`the parties’ March 8, 2013 Rule 26(f) conference, the first possible day to serve such discovery, Plaintiff served Interrogatory No.
`1 and accompanying document requests which seek information sufficient to identify all Defendants’ networks, including those
`that are hidden or encrypted, whether such networks have access to server resources, including what type of access, and the
`hardware configurations associated with such networks. While Plaintiff has requested expedited production and responses to
`this discovery, Defendants have not yet provided such information.
`
`Plaintiff could not have legally obtained this information outside of discovery because Plaintiff would have had to access portions
`of Defendants’ property that are closed to the public. See, e.g., Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 33.05 (“(a) A person commits an offense if
`he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters
`or remains in a building of another without effective consent…”).
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 26
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 26
`
`

`

`Evidence
`
`
`On information and belief, Westin Stonebriar’s accused instrumentalities include wherein said first level of access provided by
`said first wireless network stream provides access to video over IP over said first wireless network stream, and said second level
`of access provided by said second wireless network stream does not provide access to video over iP over said second wireless
`network stream.
`
`Plaintiff requires the benefit of discovery before it can identify the accused instrumentality that meets this claim limitation. At
`the parties’ March 8, 2013 Rule 26(f) conference, the first possible day to serve such discovery, Plaintiff served Interrogatory No.
`1 and accompanying document requests which seek information sufficient to identify all Defendants’ networks, including those
`that are hidden or encrypted, whether such networks have access to server resources, including what type of access, and the
`hardware configurations associated with such networks. While Plaintiff has requested expedited production and responses to
`this discovery, Defendants have not yet provided such information.
`
`Plaintiff could not have legally obtained this information outside of discovery because Plaintiff would have had to access
`Defendants’ networks without sufficient permission. See, e.g., Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 33.02 (“[a] person commits an offense if
`the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the
`owner.”); see also the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C.§2511 (“[e]xcept as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any
`person who… intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to
`intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication… shall be punished… or shall be subject to suit…”); see also the Pen
`Register and Trap and Trace Act, 18 U.S.C. §3121 (“Except as provided in this section, no person may install or use a pen register
`or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order under section 3123 of this title…”).
`
`
`Claim
`Language
`Claim 3
`A network
`transmitting
`system as in
`claim 1,
`wherein said
`first level of
`access
`provided by
`said first
`wireless
`network
`stream
`provides
`access to
`video over
`IP over said
`first wireless
`network
`stream, and
`said second
`level of
`access
`provided by
`said second
`wireless
`network
`stream does
`not provide
`access to
`video over
`iP over said
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 27
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 27
`
`

`

`Evidence
`
`
`On information and belief, Westin Stonebriar’s accused instrumentalities include wherein said first level of access to network
`resources provides a first speed of network access, and said second level of access to network resources provides a second speed
`of network access, wherein said second speed is lower than said first speed.
`
`Plaintiff requires the benefit of discovery before it can identify the accused instrumentality that meets this claim limitation. At
`the parties’ March 8, 2013 Rule 26(f) conference, the first possible day to serve such discovery, Plaintiff served Interrogatory No.
`1 and accompanying document requests which seek information sufficient to identify all Defendants’ networks, including those
`that are hidden or encrypted, whether such networks have access to server resources, including what type of access, and the
`hardware configurations associated with such networks. While Plaintiff has requested expedited production and responses to
`this discovery, Defendants have not yet provided such information.
`
`Plaintiff could not have legally obtained this information outside of discovery because Plaintiff would have had to access
`Defendants’ networks without sufficient permission. See, e.g., Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 33.02 (“[a] person commits an offense if
`the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the
`owner.”); see also the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C.§2511 (“[e]xcept as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any
`person who… intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to
`intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication… shall be punished… or shall be subject to suit…”); see also the Pen
`Register and Trap and Trace Act, 18 U.S.C. §3121 (“Except as provided in this section, no person may install or use a pen register
`or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order under section 3123 of this title…”).
`
`
`Claim
`Language
`second
`wireless
`network
`stream.
`Claim 4
`A network
`transmitting
`system as in
`claim 1,
`wherein said
`first level of
`access to
`network
`resources
`provides a
`first speed
`of network
`access, and
`said second
`level of
`access to
`network
`resources
`provides a
`second
`speed of
`network
`access,
`wherein said
`second
`speed is
`lower than
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 28
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 28
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`said first
`speed.
`Claim 5
`A system as
`in claim 4,
`wherein said
`second level
`of access
`has less
`bandwidth
`than said
`first level of
`access.
`
`Claim 6
`A system as
`in claim 1,
`wherein said
`first level of
`access
`provides
`access to a
`first service
`over IP and
`
`Evidence
`
`
`On information and belief, Westin Stonebriar’s accused instrumentalities include wherein said second level of access has less
`bandwidth than said first level of access.
`
`Plaintiff requires the benefit of discovery before it can identify the accused instrumentality that meets this claim limitation. At
`the parties’ March 8, 2013 Rule 26(f) conference, the first possible day to serve such discovery, Plaintiff served Interrogatory No.
`1 and accompanying document requests which seek information sufficient to identify all Defendants’ networks, including those
`that are hidden or encrypted, whether such networks have access to server resources, including what type of access, and the
`hardware configurations associated with such networks. While Plaintiff has requested expedited production and responses to
`this discovery, Defendants have not yet provided such information.
`
`Plaintiff could not have legally obtained this information outside of discovery because Plaintiff would have had to access
`Defendants’ networks without sufficient permission. See, e.g., Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 33.02 (“[a] person commits an offense if
`the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the
`owner.”); see also the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C.§2511 (“[e]xcept as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any
`person who… intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to
`intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication… shall be punished… or shall be subject to suit…”); see also the Pen
`Register and Trap and Trace Act, 18 U.S.C. §3121 (“Except as provided in this section, no person may install or use a pen register
`or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order under section 3123 of this title…”).
`
`
`On information and belief, Westin Stonebriar’s accused instrumentalities include wherein said first level of access provides access
`to a first service over IP and said second level of access blocks access to said first service over IP.
`
`Plaintiff requires the benefit of discovery before it can identify the accused instrumentality that meets this claim limitation. At
`the parties’ March 8, 2013 Rule 26(f) conference, the first possible day to serve such discovery, Plaintiff served Interrogatory No.
`1 and accompanying document requests which seek information sufficient to identify all Defendants’ networks, including those
`that are hidden or encrypted, whether such networks have access to server resources, including what type of access, and the
`hardware configurations associated with such networks. While Plaintiff has requested expedited production and responses to
`this discovery, Defendants have not yet provided such information.
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 29
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 29
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`said second
`level of
`access
`blocks
`access to
`said first
`service over
`IP.
`
`Claim 7
`A system as
`in claim 6,
`wherein said
`second key
`is different
`than the
`first key.
`
`Evidence
`
`Plaintiff could not have legally obtained this information outside of discovery because Plaintiff would have had to access
`Defendants’ networks without sufficient permission. See, e.g., Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 33.02 (“[a] person commits an offense if
`the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the
`owner.”); see also the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C.§2511 (“[e]xcept as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any
`person who… intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to
`intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication… shall be punished… or shall be subject to suit…”); see also the Pen
`Register and Trap and Trace Act, 18 U.S.C. §3121 (“Except as provided in this section, no person may install or use a pen register
`or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order under section 3123 of this title…”).
`
`
`On information and belief, Westin Stonebriar’s accused instrumentalities include wherein said second key is different than the
`first key.
`
`Plaintiff requires the benefit of discovery before it can identify the accused instrumentality that meets this claim limitation. At
`the parties’ March 8, 2013 Rule 26(f) conference, the first possible day to serve such discovery, Plaintiff served Interrogatory No.
`1 and accompanying document requests which seek information sufficient to identify all Defendants’ networks, including those
`that are hidden or encrypted, whether such networks have access to server resources, including what type of access, and the
`hardware configurations associated with such networks. While Plaintiff has requested expedited production and responses to
`this discovery, Defendants have not yet provided such information.
`
`Plaintiff could not have legally obtained this information outside of discovery because Plaintiff would have had to access
`Defendants’ networks without sufficient permission. See, e.g., Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 33.02 (“[a] person commits an offense if
`the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the
`owner.”); see also the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C.§2511 (“[e]xcept as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any
`person who… intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to
`intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication… shall be punished… or shall be subject to suit…”); see also the Pen
`Register and Trap and Trace Act, 18 U.S.C. §3121 (“Except as provided in this section, no person may install or use a pen register
`or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order under section 3123 of this title…”).
`
`On information and belief, WESTIN-LOBBY’s “Access Codes” and WESTIN-MEETING’s “Access Codes” appear to be different than
`WESTIN-GUEST’s “Last Name” and “Room Number.”
`
`
`Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 30
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1010, page 30
`
`

`

`Claim
`Language
`Claim 8
`A system as
`in claim 1,
`wherein said
`first key is
`provided on
`payment for
`a service.
`
`Claim 9
`A system as
`in claim 1,
`wherein said
`second level
`of access
`limits access
`such that
`only specific
`Internet
`
`Evidence
`
`
`On information and belief, Westin Stonebriar’s accused instrumentalities include wherein said first key is provided on payment
`for a service.
`
`Plaintiff requires the benefit of discovery before it can identify the accused instrumentality that meets this claim limitation. At
`the parties’ March 8, 2013 Rule 26(f) conference, the first possible day to serve such discovery, Plaintiff served Interrogatory No.
`1 and accompanying document requests which seek information sufficient to identify all Defendants’ networks, including those
`that are hidden or encrypted, whether such networks have access to server resources, including what type of access, and the
`hardware configurations associated with such networks. While Plaintiff has requested expedited production and responses to
`this discovery, Defendants have not yet provided such information.
`
`Plaintiff could not have legally obtained this information outside of discovery because Plaintiff would have had to access
`Defendants’ networks without sufficient permission. See, e.g., Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 33.02 (“[a] person commits an offense if
`the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the
`owner.”); see also the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C.§2511 (“[e]xcept as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any
`person who… intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to
`intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication… shall be punished… or shall be subject to suit…”); see also the Pen
`Register and Trap and Trace Act, 18 U.S.C. §3121 (“Except as provided in this section, no person may install or use a pen register
`or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order under section 3123 of this title…”).
`
`On information and belief, Westin Stonebriar appears to provide a “Room Number” after payment for a room.
`
`
`On information and belief, Westin Stonebriar’s accused instrumentalities include wherein said second level of access limits access
`such that only specific Internet pages can be obtained.
`
`Plaintiff requires the benefit of discovery before it can identify the accused instrumentality that meets this claim limitation. At
`the parties’ March 8, 2013 Rule 26(f) conference, the first possible day to serve such discovery, Plaintiff served Interrogatory No.
`1 and accompanying document requests which seek information sufficient to identify all Defendants’ networks, including those
`that are hidden or encrypted, whether such networks have access to server resources, including what type of access, and the
`hardware configurations associat