Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments And Contingencies.
Commitments and Contingencies	14. Commitments and Contingencies Spitfire Acquisition As disclosed in Note 6, the Company is obligated to make payments of up to $80.0 million upon the achievement of specified worldwide net sales of all products developed using the technology acquired from Spitfire Pharma Inc. within ten years following the approval of a new drug application filed with the FDA. Litigation In December 2019, a complaint was filed by Dr. De-Chu Christopher Tang (“Plaintiff”) against the Company, which was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The Plaintiff amended the complaint in February 2020 to include Vipin K. Garg and David J. Drutz as defendants, in addition to the Company (Dr. Garg, Dr. Drutz, and the Company are collectively referred to as “Defendants”). In March 2020 the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court denied the motion without prejudice and allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2020, and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint on May 1, 2020. A hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss was held on May 20, 2020. Plaintiff, who is representing himself, alleges five causes of action as follows: (1) Defendants’ alleged retention of Plaintiff’s lab notebooks after the termination of his employment in 2012; (2) alleged plagiarism based on publishing an article without naming Plaintiff as an author; (3) use of the Adhigh System, which Plaintiff alleges he developed; (4) allegations that Defendants manipulated the Company’s stock and caused a decrease in value; and (5) allegations that the Defendants “wast[ed] government grant money and poison[ed] science by leaving data to rot.” On September 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion titled “Motion to Proscribe Defendants’ Allegedly Illegal Use of Plaintiff’s AdHigh System in Altimmune’s Human Clinical Trials,” to which Defendants filed an opposition on October 13, 2020. The court has not yet ruled on that motion, which also remains pending. On November 6, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, and failure to state a claim. The court ruled on that motion on March 25, 2021, which dismissed the case on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction. On December 1, 2020, the magistrate judge assigned to the case issued a report and recommendation that Defendants’ motion to dismiss of May 1, 2020 be granted and that this action be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation on December 14, 2020, and the resolution of those objections by the district court remains pending. In December 2021, the Plaintiff refiled the complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On February 24, 2022, Defendants filed a memorandum containing a brief description of the planned motion and a concise summary of the factual and legal support for it. On the basis of that memorandum, the Court granted Defendants’ request to file a motion to dismiss and allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed on March 3, 2022, and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint on April 4, 2022. The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. The Company is a party in various contracts and subject to disputes, litigation and potential claims arising in the ordinary course of business, none of which are currently reasonably possible or probable of material loss.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2022

14. Commitments and Contingencies

Spitfire Acquisition

As disclosed in Note 6, the Company is obligated to make payments of up to $80.0 million upon the achievement of specified worldwide net sales of all products developed using the technology acquired from Spitfire Pharma Inc. within ten years following the approval of a new drug application filed with the FDA.

Litigation

In December 2019, a complaint was filed by Dr. De-Chu Christopher Tang (“Plaintiff”) against the Company, which was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The Plaintiff amended the complaint in February 2020 to include Vipin K. Garg and David J. Drutz as defendants, in addition to the Company (Dr. Garg, Dr. Drutz, and the Company are collectively referred to as “Defendants”). In March 2020 the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court denied the motion without prejudice and allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2020, and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint on May 1, 2020. A hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss was held on May 20, 2020. Plaintiff, who is representing himself, alleges five causes of action as follows: (1) Defendants’ alleged retention of Plaintiff’s lab notebooks after the termination of his employment in 2012; (2) alleged plagiarism based on publishing an article without naming Plaintiff as an author; (3) use of the Adhigh System, which Plaintiff alleges he developed; (4)

allegations that Defendants manipulated the Company’s stock and caused a decrease in value; and (5) allegations that the Defendants “wast[ed] government grant money and poison[ed] science by leaving data to rot.” On September 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion titled “Motion to Proscribe Defendants’ Allegedly Illegal Use of Plaintiff’s AdHigh System in Altimmune’s Human Clinical Trials,” to which Defendants filed an opposition on October 13, 2020. The court has not yet ruled on that motion, which also remains pending. On November 6, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, and failure to state a claim. The court ruled on that motion on March 25, 2021, which dismissed the case on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction. On December 1, 2020, the magistrate judge assigned to the case issued a report and recommendation that Defendants’ motion to dismiss of May 1, 2020 be granted and that this action be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation on December 14, 2020, and the resolution of those objections by the district court remains pending.

In December 2021, the Plaintiff refiled the complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On February 24, 2022, Defendants filed a memorandum containing a brief description of the planned motion and a concise summary of the factual and legal support for it. On the basis of that memorandum, the Court granted Defendants’ request to file a motion to dismiss and allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed on March 3, 2022, and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint on April 4, 2022. The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation.

The Company is a party in various contracts and subject to disputes, litigation and potential claims arising in the ordinary course of business, none of which are currently reasonably possible or probable of material loss.