1 unchanged sentence
In December 2019, a complaint was filed by Dr.
−Removed: De-Chu Christopher Tang (“Plaintiff”) against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
+Added: De-Chu Christopher Tang (“Plaintiff”) against us, which we 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.
2 unchanged sentences
Drutz, and the Company are collectively referred to as “Defendants”).
−Removed: See Note 17 to the consolidated financial statements appearing in Item 8 of this report for further details.
−Removed: A prior lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, resulted in the entry of a Final Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction on August 25, 2016 (the “Alabama Judgment”).
−Removed: In the Alabama Judgment, the court declared, among other things, that we owned the DVD technology that Plaintiff had developed during his employment with us, and enjoined Plaintiff from “using or disclosing any Proprietary Information or Innovations relating to the DVD technology and any associated intellectual property rights” without our written consent.
+Added: In March 2020 the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
+Added: The Court denied the motion without prejudice and allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint.
+Added: Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2020, and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint on May 1, 2020.
+Added: A hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss was held on May 20, 2020.
+Added: Plaintiff, who is representing himself, alleges five causes of action as follows:
+Added: (1) Defendants’ alleged retention of Plaintiff’s lab notebooks after the termination of his employment in 2012;
+Added: (2) alleged plagiarism based on publishing an article without naming Plaintiff as an author;
+Added: (3) use of the Adhigh System, which Plaintiff alleges he developed;
+Added: (4) allegations that Defendants manipulated our stock and caused a decrease in value;
+Added: 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
+Added: Clinical Trials,” to which Defendants filed an opposition on October 13, 2020.
+Added: The court has not yet ruled on that motion, which also remains pending.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The court ruled on that motion on March 25, 2021, which dismissed the case on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction.
+Added: 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.
+Added: Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation on December 14, 2020, and the resolution of those objections by the district court remains pending.
+Added: In December 2021, the Plaintiff refiled the complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
+Added: We believe the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation.
Mine Safety Disclosures
1 unchanged sentence
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.