Legal Matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Matters	Legal Matters WesternGeco In June 2009, WesternGeco L.L.C. (“WesternGeco”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. In the lawsuit, styled WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corporation, WesternGeco alleged that the Company had infringed several method and apparatus claims contained in four of its United States patents regarding marine seismic streamer steering devices. WesternGeco sought unspecified monetary damages and an injunction prohibiting the Company from making, using, selling, offering for sale or supplying any infringing products in the United States. In June 2009, the Company filed an answer and counterclaims against WesternGeco, in which the Company denied that it had infringed WesternGeco’s patents and asserted that the WesternGeco patents were invalid or unenforceable. The Company also asserted that WesternGeco’s Q-Marine system, components and technology infringed upon a United States patent owned by the Company related to marine seismic streamer steering devices. In addition, the Company claimed that the lawsuit by WesternGeco was an illegal attempt by WesternGeco to control and restrict competition in the market for marine seismic surveys performed using laterally steerable streamers. In its counterclaims, the Company requested various remedies and relief, including a declaration that the WesternGeco patents were invalid or unenforceable, an injunction prohibiting WesternGeco from making, using, selling, offering for sale or supplying any infringing products in the United States, a declaration that the WesternGeco patents should be co-owned by the Company, and an award of unspecified monetary damages. In June 2010, WesternGeco filed a lawsuit against various subsidiaries and affiliates of Fugro N.V. (“Fugro”), a seismic contractor customer of the Company, accusing Fugro of infringing the same United States patents regarding marine seismic streamer steering devices by planning to use certain equipment purchased from the Company on a survey located outside of U.S. territorial waters. The court approved the consolidation of the Fugro case with the case against the Company. Fugro filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and in March 2011 the presiding judge granted Fugro’s motion to dismiss in part, on the basis that the alleged activities of Fugro would occur more than 12 miles from the U.S. coast and therefore are not actionable under U.S. patent infringement law. In February 2012, the Court granted WesternGeco’s motions for summary judgment, dismissing the Company’s claims as plaintiff against WesternGeco for infringement, inventorship and inequitable conduct. In response to a Motion for Summary Judgment filed jointly by the Company and Fugro, the Court ruled in April 2012 that the Company did not directly infringe WesternGeco’s method patent claims. In a pre-trial ruling on June 29, 2012, the Court ruled that, if a particular patent claim of WesternGeco was held to be valid and enforceable at the upcoming trial, the Company’s DigiFIN^® lateral streamer control system, when combined with the Company’s lateral controller in the United States, would infringe one claim in one of WesternGeco’s asserted patents, U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520. Trial began on July 23, 2012. During the trial, Fugro settled all claims asserted against it by WesternGeco and obtained a global license from WesternGeco. A verdict was returned by the jury on August 16, 2012, finding that the Company willfully infringed the claims contained in the four patents and awarding WesternGeco the sum of $105.9 million in damages, consisting of $12.5 million in reasonable royalty and $93.4 million in lost profits. The Company believes that the verdict is not consistent with applicable law or the facts or evidence in the case and, in September 2012, filed motions with the trial court to overturn all or portions of the verdict. The ultimate outcome of the case in the trial court, and the content of the final judgment as a whole, rest with the presiding trial court judge, not the jury. The next step in the case is for the trial court judge to decide post-verdict motions filed by the parties and enter a judgment. The final judgment will determine the result of the trial prior to appeal. When he enters a judgment in the case, the judge can choose to follow the jury verdict or to take other actions, such as changing to a different result or ordering an entirely new trial. As of the filing date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the Court had not yet entered a judgment in the case. If the Court enters a judgment that is adverse to the Company, the Company intends to appeal the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. WesternGeco would also have the right to elect to appeal any final judgment. In rendering its verdict, the jury determined that the Company’s infringement was willful. Because the jury verdict indicated willfulness, the trial court judge will determine whether, in his independent judgment, the Company willfully infringed and he should declare this case to be “exceptional.” In order for the judge to find willful infringement and declare this case exceptional, WesternGeco must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Company acted with objective recklessness and in bad faith, fraudulently or engaged in similar misconduct related to the case. If the judge finds willful infringement and declares this case to be exceptional, the judge has the discretion, but not the obligation, to enhance the damages amount, not to exceed a trebling of the final judgment damages award plus reasonable attorneys’ fees. The Company believes that, given its understanding and judgment of applicable law and the relevant facts and evidence in this case, and after considering the advice of counsel, it is unlikely that the Company will incur any additional loss as a result of the jury’s finding of willfulness. Based on the Company’s understanding and judgment of applicable law and the facts and merits of this case, including appellate defenses, and after considering the advice of counsel, the Company has determined it is probable that, after exhaustion of all appeals, this lawsuit will result in a loss contingency to the Company in the amount of approximately $10 million, consisting of reasonable royalty damages, interest and court costs. The Company has adequately reserved for this loss contingency. It is reasonably possible that the Company may not ultimately prevail in the litigation and appeals process and that the Company’s loss related to the lawsuit could exceed the amount currently accrued, up to the amount of the damages in the jury verdict plus interest and court costs, or even higher if the Court decides to enhance the damages as described above. However, the Company does not believe that a loss of this magnitude is probable. The Company’s assessment of its potential loss contingency may change in the future due to developments at the trial court or appellate court and other events, such as changes in applicable law, and such re-assessment could lead to the determination that no loss contingency is probable or that a greater loss contingency is probable, which could have a material effect on the Company’s financial statements. As stated above, the Company intends to appeal the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit if the trial court enters a judgment adverse to the Company. In order to appeal the judgment, the Company may be required to post an appeal bond for the full amount of damages entered in the judgment. In order to post and collateralize a bond of that size, the Company might need to utilize a combination of cash on hand, undrawn balances available under the revolving line of credit and possibly incur additional debt and/or equity financing. The posting and collateralization of such an appeal bond could have a possible adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity. If the Company is unable to post the appeal bond, the Company may be unable to stay enforcement of the judgment or appeal the case. At this time, the Company is unable to determine whether an appeal bond would be required or the amount of such an appeal bond. Similarly, the Company is unable to predict the timing of the final judgment being entered by the trial court or the timing of posting any required appeal bond. Fletcher In November 2009, Fletcher International Ltd. (“Fletcher”), the holder of the shares of the Company’s outstanding Series D Preferred Stock until June 2012, filed a lawsuit against the Company and certain of its directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery. In the lawsuit, styled Fletcher International, Ltd. v. ION Geophysical Corporation, et al, Fletcher alleged, among other things, that the Company violated Fletcher’s consent rights contained in the Series D Preferred Stock Certificates of Designation, by (a) the execution and delivery of a convertible promissory note to the Bank of China, New York Branch by one of our subsidiaries (incorporated in Luxembourg), in connection with a bridge loan funded in October 2009 by Bank of China, and (b) a Canadian subsidiary of the Company executing and delivering several promissory notes in 2008 in connection with the Company’s acquisition of ARAM Systems Ltd., Fletcher also alleged that the Company’s directors violated their fiduciary duties by allowing the subsidiaries to deliver the notes without Fletcher’s consent. In a Memorandum Opinion issued in May 2010 in response to a motion for partial summary judgment, the judge dismissed all of Fletcher’s claims against the named Company directors but also concluded that, because the bridge loan note executed by the Company’s Luxembourg subsidiary in 2009 was convertible into the Company’s common stock, Fletcher had the right to consent to the issuance of the note and that the Company had violated Fletcher’s consent rights by that subsidiary’s issuing the note without Fletcher’s consent. In March 2011, the judge dismissed certain additional claims asserted by Fletcher. In May 2012, the judge ruled that Fletcher did not have the right to consent with respect to two promissory notes executed and delivered by the Canadian subsidiary in September 2008 in connection with the Company’s purchase of ARAM Systems Ltd., but that Fletcher did have the right to consent to the execution and delivery in December 2008 of a replacement promissory note in the principal amount of $35 million, and that the Company had violated Fletcher’s consent rights by the subsidiary’s executing and delivering the replacement promissory note without Fletcher’s consent. In June 2012, Fletcher filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Fletcher’s shares of Series D Preferred Stock, which had been pledged by Fletcher to secure certain indebtedness, were sold by the pledgee to the affiliate of D.E. Shaw & Co., Inc. in June 2012. The Company does not believe that the acquisition of the shares by an affiliate of D. E. Shaw & Co., Inc. or the bankruptcy filing by Fletcher will have a material impact on Fletcher’s lawsuit against the Company. The Company believes that the monetary damages suffered by Fletcher as a result of the Company’s subsidiaries executing and delivering the convertible note and the replacement note without Fletcher’s consent are nonexistent or nominal, and that the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit will not result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. Sercel In January 2010, the jury in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by the Company against seismic equipment provider Sercel, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas returned a verdict in the Company’s favor. In the lawsuit, styled Input/Output, Inc. et al v. Sercel, Inc., (5-6-cv-236), the Company alleged that Sercel’s 408, 428 and SeaRay digital seismic sensor units infringe the Company’s United States Patent No. 5,852,242, which is incorporated in the Company’s VectorSeis^® sensor technology. Products of the Company or INOVA Geophysical that are compatible with the VectorSeis technology include Scorpion^®, ARIES II^®, FireFly^®, Hawk^™ and VectorSeis Ocean seismic acquisition systems. The jury concluded that Sercel infringed the Company’s patent and that the Company’s patent was valid, and the jury awarded the Company $25.2 million in compensatory past damages. In response to post-verdict motions made by the parties, in September 2010, the presiding judge issued a series of rulings that (a) granted the Company’s motion for a permanent injunction to be issued prohibiting the manufacture, use or sale of the infringing Sercel products, (b) confirmed that the Company’s patent was valid, (c) confirmed that the jury’s finding of infringement was supported by the evidence and (d) disallowed $5.4 million of lost profits that were based on infringing products that were manufactured and delivered by Sercel outside of the United States, but were offered for sale by Sercel in the United States and involved underlying orders and payments received by Sercel in the United States. In addition, the judge concluded that the evidence supporting the jury’s finding that the Company was entitled to be awarded $9.0 million in lost profits associated with certain infringing pre-verdict marine sales by Sercel was too speculative and therefore disallowed that award of lost profits. As a result of the judge’s ruling, the Company was entitled to be awarded an additional amount of damages equal to a reasonable royalty on the infringing pre-verdict Sercel marine sales. After the Company learned that Sercel continued to make sales of infringing products after the January 2010 jury verdict was rendered, the Company filed motions with the court to seek additional compensatory damages for the post-verdict infringing sales and enhanced damages as a result of the willful nature of Sercel’s post-verdict infringement. In February 2011, the Court entered a final judgment and permanent injunction in the case. The final judgment awarded the Company $10.7 million in damages, plus interest, and the permanent injunction prohibits Sercel and parties acting in concert with Sercel from making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing in the United States (which includes territorial waters of the United States) Sercel’s 408UL, 428XL and SeaRay digital sensor units, and all other products that are only colorably different from those products. Sercel and the Company appealed portions of the final judgment, and on February 17, 2012, the appellate court upheld the final judgment. In April 2012, Sercel paid the Company $12.0 million pursuant to the final judgment. In its judgment, the Court also ordered that the additional damages to be paid by Sercel as a reasonable royalty on the infringing pre-verdict Sercel marine sales and the additional damages to be paid by Sercel resulting from post-verdict infringing sales would be determined in a separate proceeding to be conducted in the future. In December 2012, the Company and Sercel settled all remaining claims in exchange for $19.0 million and an agreement by Sercel to pay the Company royalties on future sales. Under this agreement, the Company has no continuing obligations. Greatbatch In 2002, the Company filed a lawsuit against operating subsidiaries of battery manufacturer Greatbatch, Inc., including its Electrochem division (collectively “Greatbatch”), in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson in the State of Louisiana. In the lawsuit, styled Input/Output, Inc. and I/O Marine Systems, Inc. v. Wilson Greatbatch Technologies, Inc., Wilson Greatbatch, Ltd. d/b/a Electrochem Lithium Batteries, and WGL Intermediate Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 578-881, Division “A”, the Company alleged that Greatbatch had fraudulently misappropriated the Company’s product designs and other trade secrets related to the batteries and battery pack used in the Company’s DigiBIRD^® marine towed streamer vertical control device and used the Company’s confidential information to manufacture and market competing batteries and battery packs. After a trial, on October 1, 2009 the jury concluded that Greatbatch had committed fraud, violated the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and breached a trust and nondisclosure agreement between Greatbatch and the Company, and awarded the Company approximately $21.7 million in compensatory damages. A judgment was entered consistent with the jury verdict. In December 2010, the Company and Greatbatch settled the lawsuit, pursuant to which Greatbatch paid the Company $25.0 million in full satisfaction of the judgment. Upon the cash receipt, the Company recorded a gain on legal settlement of $24.5 million, net of fees paid to attorneys, in 2010. Other The Company has been named in various other lawsuits or threatened actions that are incidental to its ordinary business. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. Any claims against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time-consuming, cause the Company to incur costs and expenses, require significant amounts of management time and result in the diversion of significant operational resources. The results of these lawsuits and actions cannot be predicted with certainty. Management currently believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse impact on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.

Legal Matters

WesternGeco

In June 2009, WesternGeco L.L.C. (“WesternGeco”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. In the lawsuit, styled WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corporation, WesternGeco alleged that the Company had infringed several method and apparatus claims contained in four of its United States patents regarding marine seismic streamer steering devices. WesternGeco sought unspecified monetary damages and an injunction prohibiting the Company from making, using, selling, offering for sale or supplying any infringing products in the United States.

In June 2009, the Company filed an answer and counterclaims against WesternGeco, in which the Company denied that it had infringed WesternGeco’s patents and asserted that the WesternGeco patents were invalid or unenforceable. The Company also asserted that WesternGeco’s Q-Marine system, components and technology infringed upon a United States patent owned by the Company related to marine seismic streamer steering devices. In addition, the Company claimed that the lawsuit by WesternGeco was an illegal attempt by WesternGeco to control and restrict competition in the market for marine seismic surveys performed using laterally steerable streamers. In its counterclaims, the Company requested various remedies and relief, including a declaration that the WesternGeco patents were invalid or unenforceable, an injunction prohibiting WesternGeco from making, using, selling, offering for sale or supplying any infringing products in the United States, a declaration that the WesternGeco patents should be co-owned by the Company, and an award of unspecified monetary damages.

In June 2010, WesternGeco filed a lawsuit against various subsidiaries and affiliates of Fugro N.V. (“Fugro”), a seismic contractor customer of the Company, accusing Fugro of infringing the same United States patents regarding marine seismic streamer steering devices by planning to use certain equipment purchased from the Company on a survey located outside of U.S. territorial waters. The court approved the consolidation of the Fugro case with the case against the Company. Fugro filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and in March 2011 the presiding judge granted Fugro’s motion to dismiss in part, on the basis that the alleged activities of Fugro would occur more than 12 miles from the U.S. coast and therefore are not actionable under U.S. patent infringement law.

In February 2012, the Court granted WesternGeco’s motions for summary judgment, dismissing the Company’s claims as plaintiff against WesternGeco for infringement, inventorship and inequitable conduct. In response to a Motion for Summary Judgment filed jointly by the Company and Fugro, the Court ruled in April 2012 that the Company did not directly infringe WesternGeco’s method patent claims. In a pre-trial ruling on June 29, 2012, the Court ruled that, if a particular patent claim of WesternGeco was held to be valid and enforceable at the upcoming trial, the Company’s DigiFIN^® lateral streamer control system, when combined with the Company’s lateral controller in the United States, would infringe one claim in one of WesternGeco’s asserted patents, U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520.

Trial began on July 23, 2012. During the trial, Fugro settled all claims asserted against it by WesternGeco and obtained a global license from WesternGeco. A verdict was returned by the jury on August 16, 2012, finding that the Company willfully infringed the claims contained in the four patents and awarding WesternGeco the sum of $105.9 million in damages, consisting of $12.5 million in reasonable royalty and $93.4 million in lost profits. The Company believes that the verdict is not consistent with applicable law or the facts or evidence in the case and, in September 2012, filed motions with the trial court to overturn all or portions of the verdict.

The ultimate outcome of the case in the trial court, and the content of the final judgment as a whole, rest with the presiding trial court judge, not the jury. The next step in the case is for the trial court judge to decide post-verdict motions filed by the parties and enter a judgment. The final judgment will determine the result of the trial prior to appeal. When he enters a judgment in the case, the judge can choose to follow the jury verdict or to take other actions, such as changing to a different result or ordering an entirely new trial. As of the filing date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the Court had not yet entered a judgment in the case.

If the Court enters a judgment that is adverse to the Company, the Company intends to appeal the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. WesternGeco would also have the right to elect to appeal any final judgment.

In rendering its verdict, the jury determined that the Company’s infringement was willful. Because the jury verdict indicated willfulness, the trial court judge will determine whether, in his independent judgment, the Company willfully infringed and he should declare this case to be “exceptional.” In order for the judge to find willful infringement and declare this case exceptional, WesternGeco must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Company acted with objective recklessness and in bad faith, fraudulently or engaged in similar misconduct related to the case. If the judge finds willful infringement and declares this case to be exceptional, the judge has the discretion, but not the obligation, to enhance the damages amount, not to exceed a trebling of the final judgment damages award plus reasonable attorneys’ fees. The Company believes that, given its understanding and judgment of applicable law and the relevant facts and evidence in this case, and after considering the advice of counsel, it is unlikely that the Company will incur any additional loss as a result of the jury’s finding of willfulness.

Based on the Company’s understanding and judgment of applicable law and the facts and merits of this case, including appellate defenses, and after considering the advice of counsel, the Company has determined it is probable that, after exhaustion of all appeals, this lawsuit will result in a loss contingency to the Company in the amount of approximately $10 million, consisting of reasonable royalty damages, interest and court costs. The Company has adequately reserved for this loss contingency.

It is reasonably possible that the Company may not ultimately prevail in the litigation and appeals process and that the Company’s loss related to the lawsuit could exceed the amount currently accrued, up to the amount of the damages in the jury verdict plus interest and court costs, or even higher if the Court decides to enhance the damages as described above. However, the Company does not believe that a loss of this magnitude is probable. The Company’s assessment of its potential loss contingency may change in the future due to developments at the trial court or appellate court and other events, such as changes in applicable law, and such re-assessment could lead to the determination that no loss contingency is probable or that a greater loss contingency is probable, which could have a material effect on the Company’s financial statements.

As stated above, the Company intends to appeal the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit if the trial court enters a judgment adverse to the Company. In order to appeal the judgment, the Company may be required to post an appeal bond for the full amount of damages entered in the judgment. In order to post and collateralize a bond of that size, the Company might need to utilize a combination of cash on hand, undrawn balances available under the revolving line of credit and possibly incur additional debt and/or equity financing. The posting and collateralization of such an appeal bond could have a possible adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity. If the Company is unable to post the appeal bond, the Company may be unable to stay enforcement of the judgment or appeal the case. At this time, the Company is unable to determine whether an appeal bond would be required or the amount of such an appeal bond. Similarly, the Company is unable to predict the timing of the final judgment being entered by the trial court or the timing of posting any required appeal bond.

Fletcher

In November 2009, Fletcher International Ltd. (“Fletcher”), the holder of the shares of the Company’s outstanding Series D Preferred Stock until June 2012, filed a lawsuit against the Company and certain of its directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery. In the lawsuit, styled Fletcher International, Ltd. v. ION Geophysical Corporation, et al, Fletcher alleged, among other things, that the Company violated Fletcher’s consent rights contained in the Series D Preferred Stock Certificates of Designation, by (a) the execution and delivery of a convertible promissory note to the Bank of China, New York Branch by one of our subsidiaries (incorporated in Luxembourg), in connection with a bridge loan funded in October 2009 by Bank of China, and (b) a Canadian subsidiary of the Company executing and delivering several promissory notes in 2008 in connection with the Company’s acquisition of ARAM Systems Ltd., Fletcher also alleged that the Company’s directors violated their fiduciary duties by allowing the subsidiaries to deliver the notes without Fletcher’s consent. In a Memorandum Opinion issued in May 2010 in response to a motion for partial summary judgment, the judge dismissed all of Fletcher’s claims against the named Company directors but also concluded that, because the bridge loan note executed by the Company’s Luxembourg subsidiary in 2009 was convertible into the Company’s common stock, Fletcher had the right to consent to the issuance of the note and that the Company had violated Fletcher’s consent rights by that subsidiary’s issuing the note without Fletcher’s consent. In March 2011, the judge dismissed certain additional claims asserted by Fletcher.

In May 2012, the judge ruled that Fletcher did not have the right to consent with respect to two promissory notes executed and delivered by the Canadian subsidiary in September 2008 in connection with the Company’s purchase of ARAM Systems Ltd., but that Fletcher did have the right to consent to the execution and delivery in December 2008 of a replacement promissory note in the principal amount of $35 million, and that the Company had violated Fletcher’s consent rights by the subsidiary’s executing and delivering the replacement promissory note without Fletcher’s consent.

In June 2012, Fletcher filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Fletcher’s shares of Series D Preferred Stock, which had been pledged by Fletcher to secure certain indebtedness, were sold by the pledgee to the affiliate of D.E. Shaw & Co., Inc. in June 2012. The Company does not believe that the acquisition of the shares by an affiliate of D. E. Shaw & Co., Inc. or the bankruptcy filing by Fletcher will have a material impact on Fletcher’s lawsuit against the Company.

The Company believes that the monetary damages suffered by Fletcher as a result of the Company’s subsidiaries executing and delivering the convertible note and the replacement note without Fletcher’s consent are nonexistent or nominal, and that the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit will not result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Sercel

In January 2010, the jury in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by the Company against seismic equipment provider Sercel, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas returned a verdict in the Company’s favor. In the lawsuit, styled Input/Output, Inc. et al v. Sercel, Inc., (5-6-cv-236), the Company alleged that Sercel’s 408, 428 and SeaRay digital seismic sensor units infringe the Company’s United States Patent No. 5,852,242, which is incorporated in the Company’s VectorSeis^® sensor technology. Products of the Company or INOVA Geophysical that are compatible with the VectorSeis technology include Scorpion^®, ARIES II^®, FireFly^®, Hawk^™ and VectorSeis Ocean seismic acquisition systems. The jury concluded that Sercel infringed the Company’s patent and that the Company’s patent was valid, and the jury awarded the Company $25.2 million in compensatory past damages. In response to post-verdict motions made by the parties, in September 2010, the presiding judge issued a series of rulings that (a) granted the Company’s motion for a permanent injunction to be issued prohibiting the manufacture, use or sale of the infringing Sercel products, (b) confirmed that the Company’s patent was valid, (c) confirmed that the jury’s finding of infringement was supported by the evidence and (d) disallowed $5.4 million of lost profits that were based on infringing products that were manufactured and delivered by Sercel outside of the United States, but were offered for sale by Sercel in the United States and involved underlying orders and payments received by Sercel in the United States. In addition, the judge concluded that the evidence supporting the jury’s finding that the Company was entitled to be awarded $9.0 million in lost profits associated with certain infringing pre-verdict marine sales by Sercel was too speculative and therefore disallowed that award of lost profits. As a result of the judge’s ruling, the Company was entitled to be awarded an additional amount of damages equal to a reasonable royalty on the infringing pre-verdict Sercel marine sales. After the Company learned that Sercel continued to make sales of infringing products after the January 2010 jury verdict was rendered, the Company filed motions with the court to seek additional compensatory damages for the post-verdict infringing sales and enhanced damages as a result of the willful nature of Sercel’s post-verdict infringement. In February 2011, the Court entered a final judgment and permanent injunction in the case. The final judgment awarded the Company $10.7 million in damages, plus interest, and the permanent injunction prohibits Sercel and parties acting in concert with Sercel from making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing in the United States (which includes territorial waters of the United States) Sercel’s 408UL, 428XL and SeaRay digital sensor units, and all other products that are only colorably different from those products. Sercel and the Company appealed portions of the final judgment, and on February 17, 2012, the appellate court upheld the final judgment. In April 2012, Sercel paid the Company $12.0 million pursuant to the final judgment.

In its judgment, the Court also ordered that the additional damages to be paid by Sercel as a reasonable royalty on the infringing pre-verdict Sercel marine sales and the additional damages to be paid by Sercel resulting from post-verdict infringing sales would be determined in a separate proceeding to be conducted in the future. In December 2012, the Company and Sercel settled all remaining claims in exchange for $19.0 million and an agreement by Sercel to pay the Company royalties on future sales. Under this agreement, the Company has no continuing obligations.

Greatbatch

In 2002, the Company filed a lawsuit against operating subsidiaries of battery manufacturer Greatbatch, Inc., including its Electrochem division (collectively “Greatbatch”), in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson in the State of Louisiana. In the lawsuit, styled Input/Output, Inc. and I/O Marine Systems, Inc. v. Wilson Greatbatch Technologies, Inc., Wilson Greatbatch, Ltd. d/b/a Electrochem Lithium Batteries, and WGL Intermediate Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 578-881, Division “A”, the Company alleged that Greatbatch had fraudulently misappropriated the Company’s product designs and other trade secrets related to the batteries and battery pack used in the Company’s DigiBIRD^® marine towed streamer vertical control device and used the Company’s confidential information to manufacture and market competing batteries and battery packs. After a trial, on October 1, 2009 the jury concluded that Greatbatch had committed fraud, violated the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and breached a trust and nondisclosure agreement between Greatbatch and the Company, and awarded the Company approximately $21.7 million in compensatory damages. A judgment was entered consistent with the jury verdict. In December 2010, the Company and Greatbatch settled the lawsuit, pursuant to which Greatbatch paid the Company $25.0 million in full satisfaction of the judgment. Upon the cash receipt, the Company recorded a gain on legal settlement of $24.5 million, net of fees paid to attorneys, in 2010.

Other

The Company has been named in various other lawsuits or threatened actions that are incidental to its ordinary business. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. Any claims against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time-consuming, cause the Company to incur costs and expenses, require significant amounts of management time and result in the diversion of significant operational resources. The results of these lawsuits and actions cannot be predicted with certainty. Management currently believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse impact on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.