Scott A. W. Johnson

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

That result was a different attorney (Brett Johnson). Let me refine.

Let me search for the specific case and the attorney's profile on Winston's site.

Note on sourcing: My searches did not surface a verifiable Winston & Strawn attorney profile, bar record, or education entry for "Scott A. W. Johnson." Searches for the name returned several unrelated attorneys named Scott Johnson (employment, ADA, Minnesota commercial litigation), and I have not conflated those with this attorney. The summary below is drawn from the tracked case data plus public docket context for that case family. Bar admissions and education are therefore omitted.

---

Practice focus. The single tracked matter for this attorney is Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. Tubi, Inc., in which he appears as of counsel for the defendant. That case sits in the video-on-demand / connected-TV technology space: the Multimedia Technologies patent family asserted against Tubi is the same family (e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 9,578,384; 9,055,254; 9,426,527 and related patents) litigated against LG Electronics and VIZIO, and directed to user interfaces and navigation for streaming and video-on-demand content on intelligent televisions. On that record, his patent work appears centered on consumer software and media-delivery technology rather than pharmaceuticals, mechanical arts, or standards-based Wi-Fi/FRAND litigation. No broader practice description is publicly verifiable.

Side preference. The tracked data shows 0 plaintiff-side and 1 defendant-side appearance — a defense posture representing an operating company (Tubi, a streaming service) against a patent assertion entity. The plaintiff in the family, Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd., is a Singapore-based entity that asserted a portfolio of a dozen-plus patents against multiple consumer-electronics and streaming defendants, a monetization pattern typical of NPE/PAE campaigns. Nothing in the available record indicates plaintiff-side or NPE representation by this attorney.

Firm context. Winston & Strawn is the only firm associated with his tracked appearance, where he is listed in an of counsel role. Winston & Strawn has a substantial patent litigation and PTAB practice, which is a plausible practice home for this matter, but I found no published firm biography confirming his tenure, prior firms, or his date of joining.

Notable matters and PTAB activity. The tracked matter, Multimedia Technologies v. Tubi, is the only case attributable to him. The underlying patent family saw significant PTAB activity — multiple IPRs (including IPR2024-00351 through -00355 and related proceedings, IPR2024-00694, IPR2024-00723, and IPR2025-00300), with at least one final written decision holding all challenged claims of the '384 patent unpatentable, and a related Federal Circuit appeal (No. 2025-2063) dismissed by agreement in January 2026. I cannot confirm from available sources whether this attorney personally appeared in any of those IPR or appellate proceedings, so his individual PTAB/IPR experience should not be assumed from the case family alone.