Litigation	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
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 (the “District Court”). In the lawsuit, styled WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corporation, WesternGeco alleged that the Company had infringed four of their patents concerning marine seismic surveys. Trial began in July 2012, and the jury returned a verdict in August 2012. The jury found that the Company infringed the six “claims” contained in four of WesternGeco’s patents by supplying the Company’s DigiFIN® lateral streamer control units from the United States. (In patent law, a “claim” is a technical legal term; an infringer infringes on one or more “claims” of a given patent.) In May 2014, the District Court entered a Final Judgment against the Company in the amount of $123.8 million. The Final Judgment also enjoined the Company from supplying DigiFINs or any parts unique to DigiFINs in or from the United States. The Company has conducted its business in compliance with the District Court’s orders, and has reorganized its operations such that it no longer supplies DigiFINs or any parts unique to DigiFINs in or from the United States. As of 2018, the Company has paid WesternGeco the $25.8 million of the Final Judgment (the portion of the judgment representing reasonable royalty damages and enhanced damages, plus interest). However, as further described below, the balance of the judgment against the Company ($98.0 million, representing lost profits from surveys performed by the Company’s customers outside of the United State, plus interest) has been vacated, and a new trial ordered, to determine what lost profit damages, if any, WesternGeco is entitled to. The Final Judgment was vacated after it was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. (the “Court of Appeals”), then to the Supreme Court of the United States, which remanded the case, again, to the Court of Appeals. On January 11, 2019, the Court of Appeals refused to disturb the award of reasonable royalties to WesternGeco (which the Company paid in 2016), but did not reinstate the lost profits award; rather, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether to hold a new trial as to lost profits. On August 30, 2019, the District Court refused WesternGeco’s request to reinstate the lost profits awards against the Company, and instead ordered a new trial to determine what lost profits, if any, WesternGeco is entitled to from surveys performed by the Company’s customers outside of the United States. The District Court’s basis for granting the new trial as to lost profits was that, subsequent to the jury verdict that awarded lost profits, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the Patent and Trademark Office, in an administrative proceeding, invalidated four of the five patent claims that formed the basis for the lost profits judgment against the Company (that is, the PTAB held that those four patent claims should never have been granted), and the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court both subsequently refused to overturn that finding. A trial date for the new trial has not yet been set. The Company may not ultimately prevail in the litigation and it could be required to pay lost profits if and when a new judgment issues in the new trial. The Company’s assessment that it does not have a loss contingency may change in the future due to developments at the District Court, and other events, such as changes in applicable law, and such reassessment could lead to the determination that a significant 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 Litigation 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. The Company currently believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

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 (the “District Court”). In the lawsuit, styled WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corporation, WesternGeco alleged that the Company had infringed four of their patents concerning marine seismic surveys.

Trial began in July 2012, and the jury returned a verdict in August 2012. The jury found that the Company infringed the six “claims” contained in four of WesternGeco’s patents by supplying the Company’s DigiFIN® lateral streamer control units from the United States. (In patent law, a “claim” is a technical legal term; an infringer infringes on one or more “claims” of a given patent.)

In May 2014, the District Court entered a Final Judgment against the Company in the amount of $123.8 million. The Final Judgment also enjoined the Company from supplying DigiFINs or any parts unique to DigiFINs in or from the United States. The Company has conducted its business in compliance with the District Court’s orders, and has reorganized its operations such that it no longer supplies DigiFINs or any parts unique to DigiFINs in or from the United States.

As of 2018, the Company has paid WesternGeco the $25.8 million of the Final Judgment (the portion of the judgment representing reasonable royalty damages and enhanced damages, plus interest).

However, as further described below, the balance of the judgment against the Company ($98.0 million, representing lost profits from surveys performed by the Company’s customers outside of the United State, plus interest) has been vacated, and a new trial ordered, to determine what lost profit damages, if any, WesternGeco is entitled to.

The Final Judgment was vacated after it was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. (the “Court of Appeals”), then to the Supreme Court of the United States, which remanded the case, again, to the Court of Appeals.

On January 11, 2019, the Court of Appeals refused to disturb the award of reasonable royalties to WesternGeco (which the Company paid in 2016), but did not reinstate the lost profits award; rather, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether to hold a new trial as to lost profits.

On August 30, 2019, the District Court refused WesternGeco’s request to reinstate the lost profits awards against the Company, and instead ordered a new trial to determine what lost profits, if any, WesternGeco is entitled to from surveys performed by the Company’s customers outside of the United States.

The District Court’s basis for granting the new trial as to lost profits was that, subsequent to the jury verdict that awarded lost profits, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the Patent and Trademark Office, in an administrative proceeding, invalidated four of the five patent claims that formed the basis for the lost profits judgment against the Company (that is, the PTAB held that those four patent claims should never have been granted), and the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court both subsequently refused to overturn that finding. A trial date for the new trial has not yet been set.

The Company may not ultimately prevail in the litigation and it could be required to pay lost profits if and when a new judgment issues in the new trial. The Company’s assessment that it does not have a loss contingency may change in the future due to developments at the District Court, and other events, such as changes in applicable law, and such reassessment could lead to the determination that a significant 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 Litigation

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. The Company currently believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.