Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
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. The 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 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. On April 30, 2014, the judge entered another Order, ruling that lost profits should not have been included in the calculation of supplemental damages in the October 2013 Memorandum and Order and reducing the supplemental damages award in the case from $73.1 million to $9.4 million. In the Order, the judge also further reduced the damages award in the case by $3.0 million to reflect a settlement and license that WesternGeco entered into with a customer of the Company that had purchased and used DigiFIN units that were also included in the damages amounts awarded against the Company. After accounting for the above court-ordered reductions, the total damages award in the case now consists of approximately $123.8 million, consisting of adjusted jury verdict and supplemental damages, court costs and estimates of prejudgment interest. The Company intends to appeal the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. WesternGeco also has the right to elect to appeal the 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 definitive terms of the permanent injunction. Until the permanent injunction is entered, the final 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 conducted its business in compliance with the Court’s orders in the case, and the Company has reorganized its operations such that it no longer supplies DigiFIN units, the unique DigiFIN parts or 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 from $120.0 million to $193.3 million at December 31, 2013, consisting of jury verdict damages, supplemental damages, court costs, and estimates of prejudgment interest. As a result of the Order entered in April 2014, the Company reversed its prior loss contingency accrual by approximately $70.0 million, resulting in a loss contingency accrual of $123.8 million at March 31, 2014. 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 stay the judgment during the appeal, the Company will be required to post an appeal bond with the trial court. The amount of the appeal bond is in the discretion of the trial court judge and could be required to be up to the full amount of damages entered in the judgment, plus court costs and interest; however, in the Order entered in April 2014, the judge agreed that the appeal bond amount required to be posted by the Company will be $120.0 million. The Company has arranged with sureties to post an appeal bond on its behalf. The terms of the appeal bond arrangements provide the sureties the contractual right for as long as the bond is outstanding to require the Company to post cash collateral for up to the full amount of the bond; however, as a result of the reduced damages amount, the sureties have informed the Company that they will not require cash collateral upon the posting of the appeal bond. Until an appeal bond is posted, the terms applicable to the appeal bond, including collateral required to secure the bond, are not final. If the sureties exercise their right to require collateral while the appeal bond is outstanding, the Company would intend to utilize a combination of cash on hand and undrawn balances available under its revolving line of credit. If the Company is required to collateralize the full amount of the bond, the Company might also seek additional debt and/or equity financing. The collateralization of the full amount of the bond could have an adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity. Any requirements that the Company collateralize the appeal bond will reduce its liquidity and may reduce the borrowings otherwise 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. If the Company is unable to post the appeal bond, the Company will be unable to stay enforcement of the trial court judgment during the appeal of the judgment. The Company is unable to predict the timing of the posting of the required appeal bond. 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.

The 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 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.

On April 30, 2014, the judge entered another Order, ruling that lost profits should not have been included in the calculation of supplemental damages in the October 2013 Memorandum and Order and reducing the supplemental damages award in the case from $73.1 million to $9.4 million. In the Order, the judge also further reduced the damages award in the case by $3.0 million to reflect a settlement and license that WesternGeco entered into with a customer of the Company that had purchased and used DigiFIN units that were also included in the damages amounts awarded against the Company. After accounting for the above court-ordered reductions, the total damages award in the case now consists of approximately $123.8 million, consisting of adjusted jury verdict and supplemental damages, court costs and estimates of prejudgment interest.

The Company intends to appeal the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. WesternGeco also has the right to elect to appeal the 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 definitive terms of the permanent injunction. Until the permanent injunction is entered, the final 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 conducted its business in compliance with the Court’s orders in the case, and the Company has reorganized its operations such that it no longer supplies DigiFIN units, the unique DigiFIN parts or 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 from $120.0 million to $193.3 million at December 31, 2013, consisting of jury verdict damages, supplemental damages, court costs, and estimates of prejudgment interest. As a result of the Order entered in April 2014, the Company reversed its prior loss contingency accrual by approximately $70.0 million, resulting in a loss contingency accrual of $123.8 million at March 31, 2014. 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 stay the judgment during the appeal, the Company will be required to post an appeal bond with the trial court. The amount of the appeal bond is in the discretion of the trial court judge and could be required to be up to the full amount of damages entered in the judgment, plus court costs and interest; however, in the Order entered in April 2014, the judge agreed that the appeal bond amount required to be posted by the Company will be $120.0 million. The Company has arranged with sureties to post an appeal bond on its behalf. The terms of the appeal bond arrangements provide the sureties the contractual right for as long as the bond is outstanding to require the Company to post cash collateral for up to the full amount of the bond; however, as a result of the reduced damages amount, the sureties have informed the Company that they will not require cash collateral upon the posting of the appeal bond. Until an appeal bond is posted, the terms applicable to the appeal bond, including collateral required to secure the bond, are not final.

If the sureties exercise their right to require collateral while the appeal bond is outstanding, the Company would intend to utilize a combination of cash on hand and undrawn balances available under its revolving line of credit. If the Company is required to collateralize the full amount of the bond, the Company might also seek additional debt and/or equity financing. The collateralization of the full amount of the bond could have an adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity. Any requirements that the Company collateralize the appeal bond will reduce its liquidity and may reduce the borrowings otherwise 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.

If the Company is unable to post the appeal bond, the Company will be unable to stay enforcement of the trial court judgment during the appeal of the judgment. The Company is unable to predict the timing of the posting of the required appeal bond.

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.