Litigation	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
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 the 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 reduced 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 damage amounts awarded against the Company. In May 2014, the judge signed and entered a Final Judgment in the amount of $123.8 million related to the case. The Final Judgment also included an injunction that enjoins the Company, its 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 District 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. The Company and WesternGeco each appealed the Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. On July 2, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed in part the judgment, holding the District Court erred by including lost profits in the Final Judgment. Lost profits were $93.4 million and prejudgment interest was approximately $10.9 million of the $123.8 million Final Judgment. Pre-judgment interest on the lost profits portion will be treated in the same way as the lost profits. Post-judgment interest will likewise be treated in the same fashion. On July 29, 2015, WesternGeco filed a petition for rehearing en banc before the Court of Appeals. On October 30, 2015 the Court of Appeals denied WesternGeco’s petition for rehearing en banc. On February 26, 2016, WesternGeco filed a petition for writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court. The Company filed its response on April 27, 2016. Subsequently, on June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court refused to disturb the Court of Appeals ruling finding no lost profits as a matter of law. Separately, in light of the changes in case law regarding the standard of proof for willfulness in the Halo and Stryker cases, the Supreme Court indicated that the case should be remanded to the Federal Circuit for a determination of whether or not the willfulness determination by the District Court was appropriate. On November 14, 2016, the District Court issued an order reducing the amount of the appeal bond from $120.0 million to $65.0 million, ordered the sureties to pay principal and interest on the royalty previously awarded and declined to issue a final judgment until after consideration of whether enhanced damages related to willfulness should be awarded in the case. While the Company did not agree with the unusual decision by the District Court ordering payment of the royalty damages and interest without a final judgment, the Company paid the $20.8 million due pursuant to the order to WesternGeco on November 25, 2016. On March 14, 2017, the District Court held a hearing on whether or not additional damages for willfulness would be payable. On May 16, 2017, the District Court issued an order awarding WesternGeco additional damages in the amount of $5.0 million and ordering the appeal bond to be released and discharged. On June 30, 2017, WesternGeco and the Company jointly agreed that neither party would appeal the District Court's award of $5.0 million in enhanced damages. The parties also agreed that the $5.0 million would be paid over the course of 12 months with $1.25 million being paid in two installments of $0.625 million in 2017 and the remaining $3.75 million being paid in three quarterly payments of $1.25 million beginning January 1, 2018. WesternGeco filed a second petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court on February 17, 2017, appealing the lost profits issue again. The Company filed its response to WesternGeco’s second attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court the lost profits issue, raising both the substantive matters the Company addressed by opposing WesternGeco’s first petition, and also raising a procedural argument that WesternGeco cannot raise the same issue for a second time in a second petition for certiorari. On May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court called for the views of the U.S. Solicitor General regarding whether or not to grant certiorari. The Company and WesternGeco are each scheduled to meet with the Solicitor General’s office in late July 2017. The Solicitor General is expected to issue its opinion near the end of the third quarter of 2017. 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 the 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 reduced 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 damage amounts awarded against the Company.

In May 2014, the judge signed and entered a Final Judgment in the amount of $123.8 million related to the case. The Final Judgment also included an injunction that enjoins the Company, its 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 District 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.

The Company and WesternGeco each appealed the Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. On July 2, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed in part the judgment, holding the District Court erred by including lost profits in the Final Judgment. Lost profits were $93.4 million and prejudgment interest was approximately $10.9 million of the $123.8 million Final Judgment. Pre-judgment interest on the lost profits portion will be treated in the same way as the lost profits. Post-judgment interest will likewise be treated in the same fashion. On July 29, 2015, WesternGeco filed a petition for rehearing en banc before the Court of Appeals. On October 30, 2015 the Court of Appeals denied WesternGeco’s petition for rehearing en banc.

On February 26, 2016, WesternGeco filed a petition for writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court. The Company filed its response on April 27, 2016. Subsequently, on June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court refused to disturb the Court of Appeals ruling finding no lost profits as a matter of law. Separately, in light of the changes in case law regarding the standard of proof for willfulness in the Halo and Stryker cases, the Supreme Court indicated that the case should be remanded to the Federal Circuit for a determination of whether or not the willfulness determination by the District Court was appropriate.

On November 14, 2016, the District Court issued an order reducing the amount of the appeal bond from $120.0 million to $65.0 million, ordered the sureties to pay principal and interest on the royalty previously awarded and declined to issue a final judgment until after consideration of whether enhanced damages related to willfulness should be awarded in the case. While the Company did not agree with the unusual decision by the District Court ordering payment of the royalty damages and interest without a final judgment, the Company paid the $20.8 million due pursuant to the order to WesternGeco on November 25, 2016.

On March 14, 2017, the District Court held a hearing on whether or not additional damages for willfulness would be payable. On May 16, 2017, the District Court issued an order awarding WesternGeco additional damages in the amount of $5.0 million and ordering the appeal bond to be released and discharged. On June 30, 2017, WesternGeco and the Company jointly agreed that neither party would appeal the District Court's award of $5.0 million in enhanced damages. The parties also agreed that the $5.0 million would be paid over the course of 12 months with $1.25 million being paid in two installments of $0.625 million in 2017 and the remaining $3.75 million being paid in three quarterly payments of $1.25 million beginning January 1, 2018.

WesternGeco filed a second petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court on February 17, 2017, appealing the lost profits issue again. The Company filed its response to WesternGeco’s second attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court the lost profits issue, raising both the substantive matters the Company addressed by opposing WesternGeco’s first petition, and also raising a procedural argument that WesternGeco cannot raise the same issue for a second time in a second petition for certiorari. On May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court called for the views of the U.S. Solicitor General regarding whether or not to grant certiorari. The Company and WesternGeco are each scheduled to meet with the Solicitor General’s office in late July 2017. The Solicitor General is expected to issue its opinion near the end of the third quarter of 2017.

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.