Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
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 royalties 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 ruled that WesternGeco was 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 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 against the Company 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 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, the Company recorded a loss contingency accrual of $123.8 million. As a result of the reversal by the Court of Appeals, as of June 30, 2015, the Company reduced its 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 were appropriate. On November 14, 2016, the District Court ordered the sureties to pay principal and interest on the royalty damages previously awarded and declined to issue a final judgment until after consideration of whether enhanced damages for willfulness would be awarded. While the Company disagreed with the decision by the District Court ordering payment of the royalty damages and interest without a final judgment, on November 25, 2016, the Company paid WesternGeco the $20.8 million due pursuant to the order, at which point the Company reduced its loss contingency accrual to zero. 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 the Company’s infringement was willful, based on his perception that the Company did not adequately investigate the scope of the patents, and the Company’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 the Company 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. Upon assessment of the $5.0 million in enhanced damages, the Company accrued $5.0 million in the first quarter of 2017. As the Company has made the payments, the accrual has been adjusted, and as of March 31, 2018, the loss contingency accrual was $2.5 million. 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 advancing a procedural argument that WesternGeco could not 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 upon which the District Court and Court of Appeals relied in entering their final rulings). The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 16, 2018. At oral arguments, the Company argued that the Court of Appeals’ decision that eliminated lost profits ought to be affirmed. WesternGeco and the Solicitor General argued that the Court of Appeals’ decision that eliminated lost profits ought to be reversed. We anticipate 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, and at the Supreme Court, that, as a matter of law, WesternGeco cannot recoup lost profits for the overseas use of the Company’s products. The Company also argued in the Court of Appeals that, under the jury instructions given in our case, the jury was required to find that the Company had been a direct competitor of WesternGeco in the survey markets where WesternGeco lost profits in order for WesternGeco to recoup them. Because the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Company on the first argument, and overturned the award of lost profits on that basis, the Court of Appeals did not rule on the Company’s “direct competitor” argument, and that argument was not presented to the Supreme Court for review. 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 likely be remanded back to the Court of Appeals, at which time the Company will present its second argument (that lost profits should not be awarded to WesternGeco because they were not the Company’s 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 the Company’s 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. The Company expects the Court of Appeals to rule on the PTAB issue in the second quarter of 2018. In April of 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in a case the Company was not involved in (Oil States v. Greene’s Energy Group) that affirmed the constitutionality of the IPR process to invalidate patent claims. The Company may not ultimately prevail in any of the appeals processes noted above and the Company could be required to pay some or all of the lost profits that were awarded by the District Court. The Company’s assessment that it does have a loss contingency (other than the $2.5 million noted above) 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 an additional loss contingency is probable, which could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. The Company’s assessments disclosed in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q or elsewhere are based on currently available information and involve elements of judgment and significant uncertainties. 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 royalties 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 ruled that WesternGeco was 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 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 against the Company 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 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, the Company recorded a loss contingency accrual of $123.8 million. As a result of the reversal by the Court of Appeals, as of June 30, 2015, the Company reduced its 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 were appropriate.

On November 14, 2016, the District Court ordered the sureties to pay principal and interest on the royalty damages previously awarded and declined to issue a final judgment until after consideration of whether enhanced damages for willfulness would be awarded. While the Company disagreed with the decision by the District Court ordering payment of the royalty damages and interest without a final judgment, on November 25, 2016, the Company paid WesternGeco the $20.8 million due pursuant to the order, at which point the Company reduced its loss contingency accrual to zero.

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 the Company’s infringement was willful, based on his perception that the Company did not adequately investigate the scope of the patents, and the Company’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 the Company 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. Upon assessment of the $5.0 million in enhanced damages, the Company accrued $5.0 million in the first quarter of 2017. As the Company has made the payments, the accrual has been adjusted, and as of March 31, 2018, the loss contingency accrual was $2.5 million.

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 advancing a procedural argument that WesternGeco could not 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 upon which the District Court and Court of Appeals relied in entering their final rulings).

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 16, 2018. At oral arguments, the Company argued that the Court of Appeals’ decision that eliminated lost profits ought to be affirmed. WesternGeco and the Solicitor General argued that the Court of Appeals’ decision that eliminated lost profits ought to be reversed. We anticipate 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, and at the Supreme Court, that, as a matter of law, WesternGeco cannot recoup lost profits for the overseas use of the Company’s products. The Company also argued in the Court of Appeals that, under the jury instructions given in our case, the jury was required to find that the Company had been a direct competitor of WesternGeco in the survey markets where WesternGeco lost profits in order for WesternGeco to recoup them. Because the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Company on the first argument, and overturned the award of lost profits on that basis, the Court of Appeals did not rule on the Company’s “direct competitor” argument, and that argument was not presented to the Supreme Court for review. 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 likely be remanded back to the Court of Appeals, at which time the Company will present its second argument (that lost profits should not be awarded to WesternGeco because they were not the Company’s 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 the Company’s 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. The Company expects the Court of Appeals to rule on the PTAB issue in the second quarter of 2018. In April of 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in a case the Company was not involved in (Oil States v. Greene’s Energy Group) that affirmed the constitutionality of the IPR process to invalidate patent claims.

The Company may not ultimately prevail in any of the appeals processes noted above and the Company could be required to pay some or all of the lost profits that were awarded by the District Court. The Company’s assessment that it does have a loss contingency (other than the $2.5 million noted above) 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 an additional loss contingency is probable, which could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. The Company’s assessments disclosed in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q or elsewhere are based on currently available information and involve elements of judgment and significant uncertainties.

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.