9 . Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies Loss contingencies may arise in connection with the ordinary conduct of the Companys business activities. The Company considers loss contingencies on a quarterly basis and based on known facts assesses whether potential losses are considered reasonably possible, probable, and estimable. The Company establishes an accrual for loss contingencies when the loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. If the estimated loss is a range of potential outcomes and there is no better estimate within the range, management accrues the amount at the low end of the range. These accruals represent managements estimate of probable losses and, in such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of the amounts accrued. Significant judgment is required to determine both likelihood of there being a probable loss and the estimated amount of a loss. If a loss contingency is not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not establish an accrual, but will evaluate other disclosure requirements and continue to monitor the matter for developments that would make the loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. The ultimate outcome of any litigation relating to a loss contingency is uncertain and, regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense costs, negative publicity, diversion of management resources, and other factors. On October 22, 2018, PTP OneClick, LLC (PTP) filed a lawsuit against Avalara, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The lawsuit alleges that making, using, offering to sell, and selling AvaTax, Avalara Returns, and TrustFile (the Avalara Products) infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,760,915 held by PTP and also alleges unspecified trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and breach of contract. PTP seeks judgments of willful patent infringement, willful trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and breach of contract. PTP requests preliminary and permanent injunctions to enjoin the Company from making, using, offering to sell, and selling the Avalara Products along with treble damages and attorneys fees. Based upon the Companys review of the complaint and the specified patent, the Company believes that the Company has meritorious defenses to PTPs claims. On November 7, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the lawsuit and to have the patent held invalid, and also moved to transfer the matter to the United States District Court located in Seattle, Washington. On April 30, 2019, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the Companys motion to transfer, reserving resolution of the motion to dismiss for the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On October 7, 2019, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington invalidated the patent and dismissed the patent and unfair competition claims with prejudice but did not dismiss the trade secret misappropriation or breach of contract claims. On March 5, 2020, we filed a motion for summary judgment. On May 27, 2020, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington entered summary judgment in favor of Avalara, Inc. disposing of the remaining trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract claims. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal but subsequently withdrew the notice. On July 7, 2020, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the appeal with prejudice . In its standard subscription agreements, the Company has agreed to indemnification provisions with respect to certain matters. Further, from time to time, the Company has also assumed indemnification obligations through its acquisition activity. These indemnification provisions can create a liability to the Company if its services do not appropriately calculate taxes due to tax jurisdictions, or if the Company is delinquent in the filing of returns on behalf of its customers. Although the Companys agreements have disclaimers of warranties that limit its liability (beyond the amounts the Company agrees to pay pursuant to its indemnification obligations and guarantees, as applicable), a court could determine that such disclaimers and limitations are unenforceable as a matter of law and hold the Company liable for certain errors. Further, in some instances the Company has negotiated agreements with specific customers or assumed agreements in connection with the Companys acquisitions that do not limit this liability or disclaim these warranties. Except as discussed below, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the potential loss under these indemnification arrangements. While the Company has never paid a material claim related to these indemnification provisions, the Company believes that, as of September 30, 2020, there is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred pursuant to certain of these arrangements and estimates a range of loss of up to $2.0 million. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to these arrangements as of September 30, 2020 because it has not determined that a loss is probable. The ultimate outcome of these potential obligations is unknown, and it is possible that the actual losses could be higher than the estimated range.