Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation WesternGeco Settlement On April 7, 2020, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with WesternGeco that ended the ongoing litigation. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, WesternGeco granted the Company a license to the underlying patents, lifted the injunction that prevented the Company from manufacturing DigiFIN^® in the United States and, on April 13, 2020, the District Court permanently dismissed the pending lawsuit. In exchange, the Company agreed to pay WesternGeco a settlement based on future revenues from the Company’s multi-client data library, consisting of (1) small percentage of 2D multi-client late sales for a ten year period, and (2) the transfer of a majority of the Company’s future revenue share relating to the parties’ existing joint multi-client reimaging programs offshore Mexico (WesternGeco will receive 90%, instead of 50%, of net revenues from the program, except that the revenue share for the Perdido South portion of the program shall remain 50/50). A copy of the settlement agreement is filed as an exhibit to this Form 10-Q. Background 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. As of 2018, the Company had paid WesternGeco the $25.8 million of the Final Judgment (the portion of the judgment representing reasonable royalty damages and enhanced damages, plus interest). 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) was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and a new trial ordered, to determine what lost profit damages, if any, WesternGeco was entitled to. As noted above, the lawsuit has been dismissed in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. Other Litigation In July 2018, the Company prevailed in an arbitration that it initiated against the Indian Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (“DGH”) relating to the Company’s ability to continue to license data under the Company’s IndiaSPAN program. The DGH filed a lawsuit in court in India to vacate the arbitration award; in connection with that lawsuit, the Company was ordered to escrow approximately $4.5 million in sales proceeds that it had received in respect of sales from the IndiaSPAN program, pending the outcome of the DGH’s challenge to the arbitration award. The Company challenged the escrow order, but on December 9, 2019, the Supreme Court of India ordered the Company to comply with it, which would have required the Company to deposit approximately $4.5 million in escrow in late February 2020. Since then, the Company received a court order deferring the deadline for depositing the required amount in escrow from late February 2020 to late March 2020. The Company prepared a petition to file with the court to request that the March 2020 deadline be extended due to the changes to the Company’s business, and to the markets, that have been spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Company was unable to file the application because the courts in India are closed due to the pandemic (other than for emergencies) and are not accepting filings. The Company served a copy of its draft petition on the DGH’s counsel and intend to file it as soon as the courts re-open and resume accepting filings. The Company prevailed on the merits in the arbitration and expect to have that award upheld in Indian court, which would result in release of the Company’s portion of the escrowed money. The DGH’s request to vacate the arbitration award is scheduled to be heard by the court in India on July 15, 2020. 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

Settlement

On April 7, 2020, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with WesternGeco that ended the ongoing litigation.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, WesternGeco granted the Company a license to the underlying patents, lifted the injunction that prevented the Company from manufacturing DigiFIN^® in the United States and, on April 13, 2020, the District Court permanently dismissed the pending lawsuit.

In exchange, the Company agreed to pay WesternGeco a settlement based on future revenues from the Company’s multi-client data library, consisting of (1) small percentage of 2D multi-client late sales for a ten year period, and (2) the transfer of a majority of the Company’s future revenue share relating to the parties’ existing joint multi-client reimaging programs offshore Mexico (WesternGeco will receive 90%, instead of 50%, of net revenues from the program, except that the revenue share for the Perdido South portion of the program shall remain 50/50). A copy of the settlement agreement is filed as an exhibit to this Form 10-Q.

Background

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.

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

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) was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and a new trial ordered, to determine what lost profit damages, if any, WesternGeco was entitled to.

As noted above, the lawsuit has been dismissed in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement.

Other Litigation

In July 2018, the Company prevailed in an arbitration that it initiated against the Indian Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (“DGH”) relating to the Company’s ability to continue to license data under the Company’s IndiaSPAN program. The DGH filed a lawsuit in court in India to vacate the arbitration award; in connection with that lawsuit, the Company was ordered to escrow approximately $4.5 million in sales proceeds that it had received in respect of sales from the IndiaSPAN program, pending the outcome of the DGH’s challenge to the arbitration award. The Company challenged the escrow order, but on December 9, 2019, the Supreme Court of India ordered the Company to comply with it, which would have required the Company to deposit approximately $4.5 million in escrow in late February 2020. Since then, the Company received a court order deferring the deadline for depositing the required amount in escrow from late February 2020 to late March 2020. The Company prepared a petition to file with the court to request that the March 2020 deadline be extended due to the changes to the Company’s business, and to the markets, that have been spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Company was unable to file the application because the courts in India are closed due to the pandemic (other than for emergencies) and are not accepting filings. The Company served a copy of its draft petition on the DGH’s counsel and intend to file it as soon as the courts re-open and resume accepting filings. The Company prevailed on the merits in the arbitration and expect to have that award upheld in Indian court, which would result in release of the Company’s portion of the escrowed money. The DGH’s request to vacate the arbitration award is scheduled to be heard by the court in India on July 15, 2020.

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.