Legal Matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
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. 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, 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 WesternGeco was 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 were subject to supplemental damages and also ruling that the supplemental damages applicable to the additional units were to 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 awarded 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. 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. (the “Court of Appeals”). On July 2, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed in part the Final Judgment of the District Court, holding the District Court erred by including lost profits in the Final Judgment. Lost profits were $93.4 million and prejudgment interest on the lost profits 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. As previously disclosed, we had previously taken a loss contingency accrual of $123.8 million. As a result of the reversal by the Court of Appeals, as of June 30, 2015, we reduced our loss contingency accrual to $22.0 million. 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 vacated the Court of Appeals’ ruling although it did not address the lost profits question at that time. Rather, 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 Court of Appeals for a determination of whether or not the willfulness determination by the District Court was appropriate. On October 14, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued a mandate returning the case to the District Court for consideration of whether or not additional damages for willfulness we appropriate. On March 14, 2017, the District Court held a hearing on whether or not additional damages for willfulness would be payable. The Judge found that ION’s infringement was willful, based on his perception that ION did not adequately investigate the scope of the patent, and ION’s conduct during trial. However, in his ruling at the hearing, he limited enhanced damages to $5.0 million because it was a “close case,” there was no evidence of copying, and ION was simply acting as a competitor in a capitalist marketplace. The District Court also ordered the appeal bond to be released and discharged. The Court’s findings and ruling were memorialized in an order issued on May 16, 2017. 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. This agreement was memorialized by the court in an order issued on July 26, 2017. 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 each met with the Solicitor General’s office in late July, 2017. On December 6, 2017, the Solicitor General filed its brief, and took the position that the Supreme Court ought to grant certiorari. On January 12, 2018, the Supreme Court granted certiorari as to whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that lost profits arising from use of prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases where patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2) (the specific statute under which the Company was ultimately held to have infringed WesternGeco’s patents and which the District Court and the Federal Circuit relied in entering their final rulings). The Company will argue to the Supreme Court that the decision of the Court of Appeals that eliminated lost profits ought to be upheld. We anticipate oral arguments will take place in April of 2018 and that the Supreme Court will issue a decision by the end of June of 2018. At the Court of Appeals the Company presented multiple arguments as to why the District Court’s award of lost profits was improper. The lost profits damages awarded by the District Court were based on the use of the Company’s products by our customers outside of the United States. The Company argued at the Court of Appeals that, as a matter of law, WesternGeco cannot recoup lost profits for the overseas use of our products. The Company also argued that, under the jury instructions given in our case, WesternGeco would need to have been a direct competitor of the Company’s in the survey markets to recoup lost profits, and that the jury was required to find that WesternGeco and ION were direct competitors. Because the Court of Appeals ruled in our favor on the first argument, and overturned the award of lost profits on that basis, the Court of Appeals did not rule on our “direct competitor” argument. If the Supreme Court overturns the Court of Appeals’ decision that lost profits cannot be awarded to WesternGeco because the subsequent use of the apparatus was overseas, the case will be remanded back to the Court of Appeals, at which time the Company will present our second argument (that lost profits should not be awarded to WesternGeco because they were not our direct competitor). Other proceedings may have an impact on WesternGeco’s ability to recover lost profits damages even if WesternGeco prevails in the Supreme Court, and even if the Company does not prevail on the “direct competitor” argument in the Court of Appeals. The Company was a party to a challenge to the validity of several of WesternGeco’s patent claims by means of an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). While the above-described lawsuit was pending on appeal, the PTAB invalidated four of the six patent claims that formed the basis for the jury verdict in the lawsuit. WesternGeco appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals, which heard our and WesternGeco’s arguments on January 23, 2018. If the Court of Appeals affirms the PTAB’s invalidation of the patents, that may provide a separate ground for reducing or vacating any lost-profits award in the lawsuit. We expect the Court of Appeals to rule on the PTAB issue late in first quarter of 2018 or in the second quarter of 2018. The Company may not ultimately prevail in any of the appeals processes noted above and we could be required to pay some or all of the lost profits that were awarded by the District Court. Our assessment that we do not have a loss contingency may change in the future due to developments at the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or District Court, and other events, such as changes in applicable law, and such reassessment could lead to the determination that a loss contingency is probable, which could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The Company’s assessments disclosed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K or elsewhere are based on currently available information and involve elements of judgment and significant uncertainties. Actual losses may equal or be considerably less than the lost profits awarded by the District Court. The Company does not anticipate that any losses from the date hereof would exceed the lost profits awarded by the District Court (except for the potential imposition of pre and post-judgment interest). 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.

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, 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 WesternGeco was 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 were subject to supplemental damages and also ruling that the supplemental damages applicable to the additional units were to 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 awarded 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. 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. (the “Court of Appeals”). On July 2, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed in part the Final Judgment of the District Court, holding the District Court erred by including lost profits in the Final Judgment. Lost profits were $93.4 million and prejudgment interest on the lost profits 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.

As previously disclosed, we had previously taken a loss contingency accrual of $123.8 million. As a result of the reversal by the Court of Appeals, as of June 30, 2015, we reduced our loss contingency accrual to $22.0 million.

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 vacated the Court of Appeals’ ruling although it did not address the lost profits question at that time. Rather, 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 Court of Appeals for a determination of whether or not the willfulness determination by the District Court was appropriate.

On October 14, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued a mandate returning the case to the District Court for consideration of whether or not additional damages for willfulness we appropriate. On March 14, 2017, the District Court held a hearing on whether or not additional damages for willfulness would be payable. The Judge found that ION’s infringement was willful, based on his perception that ION did not adequately investigate the scope of the patent, and ION’s conduct during trial. However, in his ruling at the hearing, he limited enhanced damages to $5.0 million because it was a “close case,” there was no evidence of copying, and ION was simply acting as a competitor in a capitalist marketplace. The District Court also ordered the appeal bond to be released and discharged. The Court’s findings and ruling were memorialized in an order issued on May 16, 2017. 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. This agreement was memorialized by the court in an order issued on July 26, 2017.

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 each met with the Solicitor General’s office in late July, 2017. On December 6, 2017, the Solicitor General filed its brief, and took the position that the Supreme Court ought to grant certiorari. On January 12, 2018, the Supreme Court granted certiorari as to whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that lost profits arising from use of prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases where patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2) (the specific statute under which the Company was ultimately held to have infringed WesternGeco’s patents and which the District Court and the Federal Circuit relied in entering their final rulings). The Company will argue to the Supreme Court that the decision of the Court of Appeals that eliminated lost profits ought to be upheld. We anticipate oral arguments will take place in April of 2018 and that the Supreme Court will issue a decision by the end of June of 2018.

At the Court of Appeals the Company presented multiple arguments as to why the District Court’s award of lost profits was improper. The lost profits damages awarded by the District Court were based on the use of the Company’s products by our customers outside of the United States. The Company argued at the Court of Appeals that, as a matter of law, WesternGeco cannot recoup lost profits for the overseas use of our products. The Company also argued that, under the jury instructions given in our case, WesternGeco would need to have been a direct competitor of the Company’s in the survey markets to recoup lost profits, and that the jury was required to find that WesternGeco and ION were direct competitors. Because the Court of Appeals ruled in our favor on the first argument, and overturned the award of lost profits on that basis, the Court of Appeals did not rule on our “direct competitor” argument. If the Supreme Court overturns the Court of Appeals’ decision that lost profits cannot be awarded to WesternGeco because the subsequent use of the apparatus was overseas, the case will be remanded back to the Court of Appeals, at which time the Company will present our second argument (that lost profits should not be awarded to WesternGeco because they were not our direct competitor).

Other proceedings may have an impact on WesternGeco’s ability to recover lost profits damages even if WesternGeco prevails in the Supreme Court, and even if the Company does not prevail on the “direct competitor” argument in the Court of Appeals. The Company was a party to a challenge to the validity of several of WesternGeco’s patent claims by means of an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). While the above-described lawsuit was pending on appeal, the PTAB invalidated four of the six patent claims that formed the basis for the jury verdict in the lawsuit. WesternGeco appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals, which heard our and WesternGeco’s arguments on January 23, 2018. If the Court of Appeals affirms the PTAB’s invalidation of the patents, that may provide a separate ground for reducing or vacating any lost-profits award in the lawsuit. We expect the Court of Appeals to rule on the PTAB issue late in first quarter of 2018 or in the second quarter of 2018.

The Company may not ultimately prevail in any of the appeals processes noted above and we could be required to pay some or all of the lost profits that were awarded by the District Court. Our assessment that we do not have a loss contingency may change in the future due to developments at the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or District Court, and other events, such as changes in applicable law, and such reassessment could lead to the determination that a loss contingency is probable, which could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The Company’s assessments disclosed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K or elsewhere are based on currently available information and involve elements of judgment and significant uncertainties. Actual losses may equal or be considerably less than the lost profits awarded by the District Court. The Company does not anticipate that any losses from the date hereof would exceed the lost profits awarded by the District Court (except for the potential imposition of pre and post-judgment interest).

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.