Litigation	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation 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 2010, WesternGeco filed a lawsuit against various subsidiaries and affiliates of Fugro N.V. (“Fugro”), one of the Company’s seismic contractor customers, 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 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 trial, the Company’s supplying of its DigiFIN^® lateral streamer control units and related software from the United States to its customers overseas with an intention for the customers to combine DigiFIN and such related software with other required components of the patent claim, 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 by supplying DigiFIN and the related software from the United States and awarded WesternGeco the sum of $105.9 million in damages, consisting of $12.5 million in reasonable royalty and $93.4 million in lost profits. In September 2012, the Company filed motions with the trial court to overturn all or portions of the verdict. In June 2013, the presiding judge entered a Memorandum and Order rejecting the jury's finding of willfulness and denying WesternGeco's motions for willfulness and enhanced damages, but also denying the Company's post-verdict motions that challenged the jury's infringement findings and the damages amount. In the Memorandum and Order, the judge also stated that he would approve WesternGeco’s motion for a permanent injunction and that WesternGeco is entitled to be awarded supplemental damages for the additional DigiFIN units that were supplied from the United States before and after trial that were not included in the jury verdict due to the timing of the trial. On October 24, 2013, the judge entered another Memorandum and Order, ruling on the number of DigiFIN units that are subject to supplemental damages and also ruling that the supplemental damages applicable to the additional units should be calculated by adding together the jury’s previous reasonable royalty and lost profits damages awards per unit, resulting in supplemental damages of $73.1 million. The total damages award in the case now consists of the jury award of $105.9 million and the supplemental damages award of $73.1 million. The October 2013 Memorandum and Order also concluded that the Company’s infringement involving the supplemental units was not willful and that WesternGeco was not entitled to receive enhanced damages. The next probable step in the case is for the trial court judge to sign and enter a final judgment. As of the filing date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the Court had not yet entered a final judgment in the case. Upon the entering of a final judgment, 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. Either within its final judgment or in a separate order entered after its final judgment, the trial court has ruled that it will also enter a permanent injunction against the Company. As of the filing date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the Court had not issued the terms of the permanent injunction. Until the permanent injunction is entered, the terms of the injunction cannot be known for certain, but it is likely that the permanent injunction will prohibit the Company from supplying its DigiFIN units, two parts that are unique to the DigiFIN product and related software from the United States to its customers overseas with an intention for the customers to combine DigiFIN and the software with other required components of the patent claims. The Company has reorganized its operations such that it no longer supplies DigiFIN units, the unique DigiFIN parts and the related software from the United States. Based on the Company’s analysis after the trial court’s Memorandum and Order in June 2013 denying the Company’s post-verdict motions that challenged the jury's infringement findings and the damages amount, the Company increased its loss contingency accrual related to this case from $10.0 million to $120.0 million, consisting of jury verdict damages, court costs, and estimates of prejudgment interest and supplemental damages. Based on the Company’s analysis after the trial court’s Memorandum and Order in October 2013 awarding supplemental damages, the Company further increased its loss contingency accrual related to this case as of September 30, 2013 from $120.0 million, to $191.8 million, consisting of jury verdict damages, supplemental damages, court costs, and estimates of prejudgment interest. Additional interest will continue to accrue until this legal matter is fully resolved. 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 reassessment could lead to the determination that no loss contingency is probable or that a greater or lesser loss contingency is probable. Any such reassessment could have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. As stated above, the Company intends to appeal the trial court judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 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. To be prepared for an adverse judgment in this case, the Company is in the process of arranging with sureties to post an appeal bond on its behalf if necessary. Until the surety arrangements are completed, the terms applicable to the appeal bond, including the terms enabling each surety to require the Company to post collateral with the surety at any time the bond is outstanding, for up to the full amount of the bond, are not certain. If the Company is required to post collateral with a surety during the appeal process, depending on the size of the bond and the level of required collateral, in order to collateralize the bond the Company might need to utilize a combination of cash on hand, undrawn balances available under its revolving line of credit and possibly incur additional debt and/or equity financing. The collateralization of such a large appeal bond could have an 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 the amount of such an appeal bond or whether and to what extent the sureties may require the appeal bond to be collateralized. 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. Any requirements that the Company collateralize the appeal bond will reduce its liquidity and may reduce the borrowings available under its credit facility. The current maturity date of any outstanding debt under the Company’s Credit Facility is March 2015. No assurances can be made whether the Company’s efforts to raise additional cash would be successful and, if so, on what terms and conditions, and at what cost the Company might be able to secure any such financing. 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 the Company’s 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. Fletcher has since declared to the Court that it will not pursue damages related to the issuance of the replacement $35 million promissory note. 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 an affiliate of D.E. Shaw & Co., Inc. in June 2012. On September 30, 2013, the holder of the shares of Series D Preferred Stock converted all of the shares into shares of the Company’s common stock. As a result of the conversion, no shares of Series D Preferred Stock remain outstanding. The Company does not believe that the acquisition of the shares by such D. E. Shaw & Co., Inc. affiliate, the bankruptcy filing by Fletcher or the conversion of all of the shares of Series D Preferred Stock into shares of the Company’s common stock 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 subsidiary executing and delivering the convertible 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. 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.

Litigation

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 2010, WesternGeco filed a lawsuit against various subsidiaries and affiliates of Fugro N.V. (“Fugro”), one of the Company’s seismic contractor customers, 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 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 trial, the Company’s supplying of its DigiFIN^® lateral streamer control units and related software from the United States to its customers overseas with an intention for the customers to combine DigiFIN and such related software with other required components of the patent claim, 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 by supplying DigiFIN and the related software from the United States and awarded WesternGeco the sum of $105.9 million in damages, consisting of $12.5 million in reasonable royalty and $93.4 million in lost profits.

In September 2012, the Company filed motions with the trial court to overturn all or portions of the verdict. In June 2013, the presiding judge entered a Memorandum and Order rejecting the jury's finding of willfulness and denying WesternGeco's motions for willfulness and enhanced damages, but also denying the Company's post-verdict motions that challenged the jury's infringement findings and the damages amount. In the Memorandum and Order, the judge also stated that he would approve WesternGeco’s motion for a permanent injunction and that WesternGeco is entitled to be awarded supplemental damages for the additional DigiFIN units that were supplied from the United States before and after trial that were not included in the jury verdict due to the timing of the trial. On October 24, 2013, the judge entered another Memorandum and Order, ruling on the number of DigiFIN units that are subject to supplemental damages and also ruling that the supplemental damages applicable to the additional units should be calculated by adding together the jury’s previous reasonable royalty and lost profits damages awards per unit, resulting in supplemental damages of $73.1 million. The total damages award in the case now consists of the jury award of $105.9 million and the supplemental damages award of $73.1 million. The October 2013 Memorandum and Order also concluded that the Company’s infringement involving the supplemental units was not willful and that WesternGeco was not entitled to receive enhanced damages.

The next probable step in the case is for the trial court judge to sign and enter a final judgment. As of the filing date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the Court had not yet entered a final judgment in the case.

Upon the entering of a final judgment, 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.

Either within its final judgment or in a separate order entered after its final judgment, the trial court has ruled that it will also enter a permanent injunction against the Company. As of the filing date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the Court had not issued the terms of the permanent injunction. Until the permanent injunction is entered, the terms of the injunction cannot be known for certain, but it is likely that the permanent injunction will prohibit the Company from supplying its DigiFIN units, two parts that are unique to the DigiFIN product and related software from the United States to its customers overseas with an intention for the customers to combine DigiFIN and the software with other required components of the patent claims. The Company has reorganized its operations such that it no longer supplies DigiFIN units, the unique DigiFIN parts and the related software from the United States.

Based on the Company’s analysis after the trial court’s Memorandum and Order in June 2013 denying the Company’s post-verdict motions that challenged the jury's infringement findings and the damages amount, the Company increased its loss contingency accrual related to this case from $10.0 million to $120.0 million, consisting of jury verdict damages, court costs, and estimates of prejudgment interest and supplemental damages. Based on the Company’s analysis after the trial court’s Memorandum and Order in October 2013 awarding supplemental damages, the Company further increased its loss contingency accrual related to this case as of September 30, 2013 from $120.0 million, to $191.8 million, consisting of jury verdict damages, supplemental damages, court costs, and estimates of prejudgment interest. Additional interest will continue to accrue until this legal matter is fully resolved.

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 reassessment could lead to the determination that no loss contingency is probable or that a greater or lesser loss contingency is probable. Any such reassessment could have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

As stated above, the Company intends to appeal the trial court judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 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. To be prepared for an adverse judgment in this case, the Company is in the process of arranging with sureties to post an appeal bond on its behalf if necessary. Until the surety arrangements are completed, the terms applicable to the appeal bond, including the terms enabling each surety to require the Company to post collateral with the surety at any time the bond is outstanding, for up to the full amount of the bond, are not certain. If the Company is required to post collateral with a surety during the appeal process, depending on the size of the bond and the level of required collateral, in order to collateralize the bond the Company might need to utilize a combination of cash on hand, undrawn balances available under its revolving line of credit and possibly incur additional debt and/or equity financing. The collateralization of such a large appeal bond could have an 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 the amount of such an appeal bond or whether and to what extent the sureties may require the appeal bond to be collateralized. 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.

Any requirements that the Company collateralize the appeal bond will reduce its liquidity and may reduce the borrowings available under its credit facility. The current maturity date of any outstanding debt under the Company’s Credit Facility is March 2015. No assurances can be made whether the Company’s efforts to raise additional cash would be successful and, if so, on what terms and conditions, and at what cost the Company might be able to secure any such financing.

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 the Company’s 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. Fletcher has since declared to the Court that it will not pursue damages related to the issuance of the replacement $35 million promissory note.

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 an affiliate of D.E. Shaw & Co., Inc. in June 2012. On September 30, 2013, the holder of the shares of Series D Preferred Stock converted all of the shares into shares of the Company’s common stock. As a result of the conversion, no shares of Series D Preferred Stock remain outstanding. The Company does not believe that the acquisition of the shares by such D. E. Shaw & Co., Inc. affiliate, the bankruptcy filing by Fletcher or the conversion of all of the shares of Series D Preferred Stock into shares of the Company’s common stock 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 subsidiary executing and delivering the convertible 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.

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.