Item 3. Legal Proceedings

We are party to legal proceedings with respect to a variety of matters in the ordinary course of business, including those matters described below. With respect to the ongoing matters, we are unable, at the present time, to determine the ultimate resolution of or provide a reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss attributable to these matters or the impact they may have on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows. This is primarily because the matters are generally in early stages and discovery has either not commenced or been completed. Although we believe we have strong defenses and intend to vigorously defend these matters, we could in the future incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Xactware Solutions, Inc. Patent Litigation

On October 8, 2015, we were served with a summons and complaint in an action titled Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Group, Inc. v. Xactware Solutions, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that our Roof InSight, or now known as Geomni Roof, Property InSight product, or now known as Geomni Property and Aerial Sketch product in combination with our Xactimate product infringe seven patents owned by Eagle View and Pictometry namely, Patent Nos. 8,078,436, or the 436 patent, 8,170,840, or the 840 patent, 8,209,152, or the 152 patent, 8,542,880, or the 880 patent, 8,818,770, or the 770 patent, 8,823,732, or the 732 patent, and 8,825,454, or the 454 patent. On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding Patent Nos. 9,129,376, or the 376 patent and 9,135,737, or the 737 patent to the lawsuit. The First Amended Complaint seeks an entry of judgment by the Court that defendants have and continue to directly infringe and/or indirectly infringe, including by way of inducement the Patents-in-Suit, permanent injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorney’s fees. On May 19, 2017, the District Court so ordered a Joint Stipulated Order of Partial Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing all claims or assertions pertaining to Pictometry Patents Nos. 880 and 732 and certain asserted claims of the Eagle View Patents Nos. 436, 840, 152, 770, 454, 376 and 737, or collectively the “Patents in Suit”. Eagle View further reduced the number of asserted claims pertaining to the Patents in Suit to 18 asserted claims. Thereafter, Eagle View dropped the 152 patent and further reduced the number of asserted claims from the six remaining Patents in Suit to 11 asserted claims. Fact discovery and expert discovery are now closed and defendants' summary judgment motions were fully submitted on October 26, 2018. On December 6, 2018, the Court denied Eagle View’s motion for summary judgment that a key prior art reference be excluded. On December 20, 2018, the Court denied our motion for summary judgment of equitable estoppel. On January 29, 2019, the Court denied our motion for summary judgment of unpatentability pursuant to Section 101 of the Patent Statute. At this time, it is not reasonably possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, this matter.

360Value Litigation

On December 10, 2018, we were served with a First Amended Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California titled Sheahan, et al. v. State Farm General Insurance Co., Inc., et al. The action is brought by California homeowners, on their own behalf and on behalf of an unspecified putative class of State Farm policyholders whose homes were damaged or lost during the Northern California wildfires of 2017, against State Farm as well as us, ISO, and Xactware Solutions, Inc. Plaintiffs served a Second Amended Complaint on January 6, 2019. Like the First Amended Complaint, it alleges that defendants through the use of our 360Value product conspired to under-insure plaintiffs’ homes by issuing undervalued policies and underestimating the costs of rebuilding those homes. Plaintiffs claim that defendants violated federal antitrust law as well as California consumer protection law and common law. At this time, it is not reasonably possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, this matter.