Operating Leases. The Company’s principal commitments consist of obligations under enforceable and legally binding lease agreements for office space and data center facilities. The Company assumes renewals in its determination of the lease term if the renewals are deemed to be reasonably assured. Rent expense was $2.5 million, $1.9 million and $2.0 million for fiscal 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

As of January 31, 2019, future minimum rental commitments under non-cancelable operating leases were as follows (in thousands):

Fiscal Year Ending January 31,	Operating Leases
2020	$	1,983
2021		1,408
2022		917
2023		266
2024 and thereafter		49
Total	$	4,623

Purchase Commitments. As of January 31, 2019, non-cancelable purchase commitments with the Company’s contract manufacturers were $4.2 million.

In addition to the litigation matters described below, from time to time, the Company may be involved in a variety of other claims, lawsuits, investigations, and proceedings relating to contractual disputes, intellectual property rights, employment matters, regulatory compliance matters, and other litigation matters relating to various claims that arise in the normal course of business. Defending such proceedings is costly and can impose a significant burden on management and employees, the Company may receive unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation, and there can be no assurances that favorable final outcomes will be obtained.

The Company determines whether an estimated loss from a contingency should be accrued by assessing whether a loss is deemed probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company assesses its potential liability by analyzing specific litigation and regulatory matters using reasonably available information. The Company develops its views on estimated losses in consultation with inside and outside counsel, which involves a subjective analysis of potential results and outcomes, assuming various combinations of appropriate litigation and settlement strategies. Legal fees are expensed in the period in which they are incurred.

As of January 31, 2019, the Company does not have any accrued liabilities recorded for loss contingencies in its consolidated financial statements.

On January 21, 2016, the County of Berks, Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas naming the Company and 113 other telephone service providers as defendants (the “Berks County Litigation”), alleging breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation in connection with alleged violations of the Pennsylvania 911 Emergency Communication Services Act (“PA 911 Act”) for failure to collect from subscribers and remit certain fees pursuant to the PA 911 Act. The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the Company must comply with the PA 911 Act, compensatory and punitive damages and such other relief as the court may deem proper. The Company believes that the plaintiff’s claims are without merit since the Company has no employees, property or other indicia of a “substantial nexus” with the State of Pennsylvania. The Company intends to continue vigorously defending against this lawsuit. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the Company will obtain a favorable final outcome or that it will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of its defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources.

Based on the Company’s current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Berks County Litigation is not estimable.

On June 8, 2016, plaintiff Deep Green Wireless LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Ooma, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE42,714 (the “Deep Green Wireless Patent”, and such litigation, the “Deep Green Wireless Litigation”). The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and other appropriate relief. In February 2017, the Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, which proceeding has been stayed pending the outcome of an inter partes review of the Deep Green Wireless Patent by the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The PTAB has granted the Company’s motion for inter partes review of the Deep Green Wireless Patent, and on August 13, 2018 the PTAB heard oral arguments from each party. On December 17, 2018, the PTAB issued its final decision regarding the claims at issue in the Deep Green Wireless Litigation, in which it determined that all challenged claims of the ‘714 patent are obvious and unpatentable. Plaintiff failed to timely file an appeal to the PTAB by the January 16, 2019 deadline. Plaintiff filed its Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit on February 19, 2019 and the Company filed a Notice of Appeal on the same date to preserve its right to challenge the PTAB’s final decision concerning combinations of prior art that the PTAB determined did not render the ‘714 patent obvious and unpatentable. If the Federal Circuit rules in favor of the Company on appeal, the Deep Green Wireless Litigation should be dismissed.

Based on the Company’s current knowledge, and as confirmed by the PTAB’s final decision, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Deep Green Wireless Litigation is not estimable.

On September 4, 2018, plaintiff Scott Dolemba filed a putative class action complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and other appropriate relief. The parties are commencing the discovery phase. Based on the Company’s current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any loss resulting from the Dolemba Litigation is not estimable.

On August 30, 2016, the Oregon Department of Revenue (the “DOR”) issued tax assessments against the Company for the Oregon Emergency Communications Tax (the “Tax”), which the DOR alleges Ooma should have collected from its subscribers in Oregon and remitted to the DOR during the period starting on January 1, 2013 and ending on March 31, 2016 (collectively, the “Assessments”). On November 28, 2016, the Company filed a complaint in the Oregon Tax Court, asserting that the Assessments against the Company is in violation of applicable Oregon law and are barred by the United States Constitution, and asking the Oregon Tax Court to abate the Assessments in full (the “Complaint”, and such dispute, the “Oregon Tax Litigation”). On February 10, 2017, the DOR filed an answer to the Complaint, and during April 2017, the Company voluntarily participated in an informal discovery process by providing certain information and documents to the DOR. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on September 29, 2017, and on December 13, 2017 the Court heard oral arguments from the parties regarding such motion.

On March 27, 2018, the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court issued its decision denying the Company’s motion, and granting the DOR’s motion for summary judgment. Notwithstanding such decision, the Company believes that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution bars the application of the Tax and the Assessments to the Company, since the Company has no employees, property or other indicia of a “substantial nexus” with the State of Oregon. On June 12, 2018, the Company filed an appeal of the Magistrate Divisions decision and on October 12, 2018, the Company filed its motion for summary judgment with the Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court. The DOR filed its motion for summary judgment on November 16, 2018. On January 17, 2019, the Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court heard oral argument on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, and no decision has been issued. The Company will continue to vigorously litigate the Complaint in pursuit of the full abatement of the Assessments. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the Company will obtain a favorable final outcome or that it will be able to avoid further unfavorable interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of its defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources.

During fiscal 2019, the Company paid $0.6 million to the State of Oregon in connection with the Oregon Tax Litigation, of which $0.3 million was charged to the consolidated statement of operations as the amount of loss deemed probable and reasonably estimable, and $0.3 million was recorded as a receivable in other current assets on the consolidated balance sheet for interest and penalties that the Company expects will be refunded.

On May 2, 2018, plaintiff Secure Cam, LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Butterfleye, Inc., alleging infringement of four United States patents (No. 8,531,555, No. 8,350,928, No. 8,836,819 and No. 9,363,408) (the “Secure Cam Litigation”). On September 28, 2018, the Company and Secure Cam, LLC settled the complaint for an immaterial amount and the complaint was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

On January 14, 2016, Michael Barnett filed a purported stockholder class action in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California (Case No. CIV536959) against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters of the Company’s IPO on July 17, 2015. Since that time two additional purported class actions making substantially the same allegations against the same defendants were filed, and on May 18, 2016, all three complaints were combined into a “consolidated complaint” filed in the same court (the “Securities Litigation”). The consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of common stock in the Company’s IPO in reliance upon the Registration Statement and Prospectus the Company filed with the SEC. The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company and the other defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) by issuing the Registration Statement and Prospectus, which the plaintiffs allege contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court may deem proper.

On November 29, 2017, the Superior Court dismissed the claims that were based on Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act with prejudice, but denied the Company’s motion to stay the case pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Cyan v. Beaver Cnty. Emp. Ret.‘ Fund. On March 20, 2018, the United States Supreme Court published its decision in the Cyan case, holding that state courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims brought under the Securities Act, such as the claims alleging violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act (the only remaining claims in the Securities Litigation) brought against the Company in the Superior Court. The parties are now engaged in the discovery phase of the litigation.

The Company believes the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and the Company is vigorously defending against the Securities Litigation and will continue to do so. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the Company will obtain a favorable final outcome or that it will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of its defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources.

Based on the Company’s current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Securities Litigation is not estimable.

The Company enters into standard indemnification arrangements in the ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these arrangements, the Company indemnifies, holds harmless and agrees to reimburse the indemnified parties for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party, in connection with any trade secret, copyright, patent or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third party with respect to the Company’s technology. The term of these indemnification agreements is generally perpetual. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these agreements is not determinable because it involves claims that may be made against the Company in the future, but have not yet been made.

The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and officers that may require the Company to indemnify its directors and officers against liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers, other than liabilities arising from willful misconduct of the individual. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, the Company has director and officer insurance coverage that reduces the Company’s exposure and enables the Company to recover a portion of any future amounts paid.

To date the Company has not incurred costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. No liability associated with such indemnifications has been recorded to date.