Litigation	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 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. The trial began in July 2012. A verdict was returned by the jury in August 2012, finding that the Company infringed the claims contained in the four patents by supplying its DigiFIN^® lateral streamer control units 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 June 2013, the presiding judge entered a Memorandum and Order, ruling 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. In October 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. In April 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. In May 2014, the judge signed and entered a Final Judgment in the amount of $123.8 million. Also, the Final Judgment included an injunction that enjoins the Company, its servants, agents and anyone acting in concert with it, from supplying in or from the United States the DigiFIN product or any parts unique to the DigiFIN product, or any instrumentality no more than colorably different from any of these products or parts, for combination outside of the United States. 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 the DigiFIN product or any parts unique to the DigiFIN product in or from the United States. As previously disclosed, the Company has taken a loss contingency accrual of $123.8 million related to this case. Post-judgment 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 in the case 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. The Company and WesternGeco have each appealed the Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Company filed its appeal brief on September 4, 2014. WesternGeco’s appeal brief was filed on October 21, 2014. Oral arguments have not been scheduled as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. In order to stay the judgment during the appeal, the Company arranged with sureties to post an appeal bond with the trial court on the Company’s behalf in the amount of $120.0 million. 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, the sureties did not require cash collateral upon the posting of the appeal bond. 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 the Company’s New Credit Facility. 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 amount otherwise available to be borrowed under its New Credit Facility. 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. The Company will incur fees of approximately $2.0 million per year to maintain the appeal bond until such time as the appeal bond is no longer required. 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.

The trial began in July 2012. A verdict was returned by the jury in August 2012, finding that the Company infringed the claims contained in the four patents by supplying its DigiFIN^® lateral streamer control units 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 June 2013, the presiding judge entered a Memorandum and Order, ruling 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. In October 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.

In April 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.

In May 2014, the judge signed and entered a Final Judgment in the amount of $123.8 million. Also, the Final Judgment included an injunction that enjoins the Company, its servants, agents and anyone acting in concert with it, from supplying in or from the United States the DigiFIN product or any parts unique to the DigiFIN product, or any instrumentality no more than colorably different from any of these products or parts, for combination outside of the United States. 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 the DigiFIN product or any parts unique to the DigiFIN product in or from the United States.

As previously disclosed, the Company has taken a loss contingency accrual of $123.8 million related to this case. Post-judgment 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 in the case 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.

The Company and WesternGeco have each appealed the Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Company filed its appeal brief on September 4, 2014. WesternGeco’s appeal brief was filed on October 21, 2014. Oral arguments have not been scheduled as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

In order to stay the judgment during the appeal, the Company arranged with sureties to post an appeal bond with the trial court on the Company’s behalf in the amount of $120.0 million. 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, the sureties did not require cash collateral upon the posting of the appeal bond. 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 the Company’s New Credit Facility. 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 amount otherwise available to be borrowed under its New Credit Facility. 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. The Company will incur fees of approximately $2.0 million per year to maintain the appeal bond until such time as the appeal bond is no longer required.

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.