Litigation	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Litigation [Abstract]
Litigation	(9) 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 alleges that the Company has infringed several method and apparatus claims contained in four United States patents regarding marine seismic streamer steering devices that are owned by WesternGeco. WesternGeco is seeking unspecified monetary damages and an injunction prohibiting the Company from making, using, selling, offering for sale or supplying any infringing products in the United States. In June 2009, the Company filed an answer and counterclaims against WesternGeco, in which the Company denies that it has infringed WesternGeco’s patents and asserts that the WesternGeco patents are invalid or unenforceable. The Company also asserted that WesternGeco’s Q-Marine system, components and technology infringe upon a United States patent owned by the Company related to marine seismic streamer steering devices. In addition, the Company claimed that the lawsuit by WesternGeco is an illegal attempt by WesternGeco to control and restrict competition in the market for marine seismic surveys performed using laterally steerable streamers. In its counterclaims, the Company requested various remedies and relief, including a declaration that the WesternGeco patents are invalid or unenforceable, an injunction prohibiting WesternGeco from making, using, selling, offering for sale or supplying any infringing products in the United States, a declaration that the WesternGeco patents should be co-owned by the Company, and an award of unspecified monetary damages. In June 2010, WesternGeco filed a lawsuit against various subsidiaries and affiliates of Fugro N.V. (“Fugro”), a seismic contractor customer of the Company, accusing Fugro of infringing the same United States patents regarding marine seismic streamer steering devices by planning to use certain equipment purchased from the Company on a survey located outside of U.S. territorial waters. The court approved the consolidation of the Fugro case with the case against the Company. Fugro filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and in March 2011 the presiding judge granted Fugro’s motion to dismiss in part, on the basis that the alleged activities of Fugro would occur more than 12 miles from the U.S. coast and therefore are not actionable under U.S. patent infringement law. On February 21, 2012, the Court granted WesternGeco’s motions for summary judgment related to the Company’s claims as plaintiff against WesternGeco for infringement, inventorship and inequitable conduct. In response to a Motion for Summary Judgment filed jointly by the Company and Fugro, the Court ruled on April 25, 2012 that the Company did not directly infringe WesternGeco’s method patent claims. On June 29, 2012, the Court ruled that, if the particular patent claim is held to be valid and enforceable at the upcoming trial in the lawsuit, the Company’s DigiFIN™ lateral streamer control system, when combined with the Company’s lateral controller in the United States, would infringe one claim in one of WesternGeco’s asserted patents, U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520. The trial in the lawsuit began on July 23, 2012 and, as of the filing date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, has not yet resulted in a jury verdict or judgment. If, at trial, the judge or jury agrees with the Company and determines that the above patent claim is invalid, the pre-trial infringement finding will have no effect and the patent claim will be declared void and unenforceable. If the judge or jury determines that the above patent claim is valid and enforceable, the Company will then be liable to WesternGeco for infringement damages in an amount to be determined by the jury. If the patent claim is determined to be valid and the infringement finding is upheld, the Company will then have the right to ask the Court to enter a judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict and, if unsuccessful with the Court, to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Based on the Company’s review of the lawsuit filed by WesternGeco and the WesternGeco patents at issue, the Company believes that its products do not infringe any valid WesternGeco patents and that the claims asserted against the Company by WesternGeco are without merit and that the ultimate outcome of the claims against it will not result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. The Company intends to continue to defend the claims against it vigorously. *Fletcher* In November 2009, Fletcher International Ltd. (“Fletcher”), the holder of the shares of the Company’s outstanding Series D Preferred Stock until June 2012, when the shares were sold to an affiliate of the investment firm D. E. Shaw, filed a lawsuit against the Company and certain of its directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery. In the lawsuit, styled Fletcher International, Ltd. v. ION Geophysical Corporation, et al, Fletcher alleged, among other things, that the Company violated Fletcher’s consent rights contained in the Series D Preferred Stock Certificates of Designation, by (a) ION Sàrl’s execution and delivery of a convertible promissory note to the Bank of China, New York Branch, in connection with a bridge loan funded in October 2009 by Bank of China, and (b) another subsidiary of the Company executing and delivering several promissory notes in 2008 in connection with the Company’s acquisition of ARAM Systems Ltd., and that ION’s directors violated their fiduciary duty to the Company by allowing the subsidiaries to deliver the notes without Fletcher’s consent. In a Memorandum Opinion issued in May 2010 in response to a motion for partial summary judgment, the judge dismissed all of Fletcher’s claims against the named Company directors but also concluded that, because the bridge loan note executed by ION Sàrl in 2009 was convertible into ION common stock, Fletcher had the right to consent to the issuance of the note and that the Company violated Fletcher’s consent right by ION Sàrl issuing the note without Fletcher’s consent. In December 2010, the presiding judge in the case recused himself from the case and a new presiding judge was appointed to the case. In March 2011, the judge dismissed certain of the claims asserted by Fletcher. In May 2012, the judge ruled that Fletcher did not have the right to consent with respect to two promissory notes executed and delivered in September 2008 in connection with the Company’s purchase of ARAM Systems Ltd., but that Fletcher did have the right to consent to the execution and delivery in December 2008 of a replacement promissory note in the principal amount of $35 million, and that the Company violated Fletcher’s consent right by a Company subsidiary’s executing and delivering the replacement promissory note without Fletcher’s consent. The Company believes that the monetary damages suffered by Fletcher as a result of the Company’s subsidiaries executing and delivering the two notes without Fletcher’s consent are nonexistent or nominal, and that the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit will not result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. *Sercel* In January 2010, the jury in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by the Company against seismic equipment provider Sercel, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas returned a verdict in the Company’s favor. In the lawsuit, styled Input/Output, Inc. et al v. Sercel, Inc., (5-06-cv-00236), the Company alleged that Sercel’s 408, 428 and SeaRay digital seismic sensor units infringe the Company’s United States Patent No. 5,852,242, which is incorporated in the Company’s VectorSeis^® sensor technology. Products of the Company or INOVA Geophysical that are compatible with the VectorSeis technology include Scorpion^®, ARIES^® II, FireFly^®, Hawk ^TM and VectorSeis Ocean seismic acquisition systems. The jury concluded that Sercel infringed the Company’s patent and that the Company’s patent was valid, and the jury awarded the Company $25.2 million in compensatory past damages. In response to post-verdict motions made by the parties, in September 2010, the presiding judge issued a series of rulings that (a) granted the Company’s motion for a permanent injunction to be issued prohibiting the manufacture, use or sale of the infringing Sercel products, (b) confirmed that the Company’s patent was valid, (c) confirmed that the jury’s finding of infringement was supported by the evidence and (d) disallowed $5.4 million of lost profits that were based on infringing products that were manufactured and delivered by Sercel outside of the United States, but were offered for sale by Sercel in the United States and involved underlying orders and payments received by Sercel in the United States. In addition, the judge concluded that the evidence supporting the jury’s finding that the Company was entitled to be awarded $9.0 million in lost profits associated with certain infringing pre-verdict marine sales by Sercel was too speculative and therefore disallowed that award of lost profits. As a result of the judge’s ruling, the Company is now entitled to be awarded an additional amount of damages equal to a reasonable royalty on the infringing pre-verdict Sercel marine sales. After the Company learned that Sercel continued to make sales of infringing products after the January 2010 jury verdict was rendered, the Company filed motions with the court to seek additional compensatory damages for the post-verdict infringing sales and enhanced damages as a result of the willful nature of Sercel’s post-verdict infringement. In February 2011, the Court entered a final judgment and permanent injunction in the case. The final judgment awarded the Company $10.7 million in damages, plus interest, and the permanent injunction prohibits Sercel and parties acting in concert with Sercel from making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing in the United States (which includes territorial waters of the United States) Sercel’s 408UL, 428XL and SeaRay digital sensor units, and all other products that are only colorably different from those products. The Court ordered that the additional damages to be paid by Sercel as a reasonable royalty on the infringing pre-verdict Sercel marine sales and the additional damages to be paid by Sercel resulting from post-verdict infringing sales would be determined in a separate future proceeding. Sercel and the Company appealed portions of the final judgment, and on February 17, 2012, the appellate court upheld the final judgment. In April 2012, Sercel paid the Company $12.0 million pursuant to the final judgment. *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. Management currently believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. *Financial Impact of Gain and Loss Contingencies* Upon receipt of the payment from Sercel regarding the final judgment discussed above, the Company recorded a gain of approximately $12.0 million. Additionally, the Company recorded a loss contingency of approximately $10.0 million in connection with certain other legal matters discussed elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Both amounts were reflected within Other Income (Expense) during the three months ended June 30, 2012.

Litigation

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

(9) 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 alleges that the Company has infringed several method and apparatus claims contained in four United States patents regarding marine seismic streamer steering devices that are owned by WesternGeco. WesternGeco is seeking unspecified monetary damages and an injunction prohibiting the Company from making, using, selling, offering for sale or supplying any infringing products in the United States.

In June 2009, the Company filed an answer and counterclaims against WesternGeco, in which the Company denies that it has infringed WesternGeco’s patents and asserts that the WesternGeco patents are invalid or unenforceable. The Company also asserted that WesternGeco’s Q-Marine system, components and technology infringe upon a United States patent owned by the Company related to marine seismic streamer steering devices. In addition, the Company claimed that the lawsuit by WesternGeco is an illegal attempt by WesternGeco to control and restrict competition in the market for marine seismic surveys performed using laterally steerable streamers. In its counterclaims, the Company requested various remedies and relief, including a declaration that the WesternGeco patents are invalid or unenforceable, an injunction prohibiting WesternGeco from making, using, selling, offering for sale or supplying any infringing products in the United States, a declaration that the WesternGeco patents should be co-owned by the Company, and an award of unspecified monetary damages.

In June 2010, WesternGeco filed a lawsuit against various subsidiaries and affiliates of Fugro N.V. (“Fugro”), a seismic contractor customer of the Company, accusing Fugro of infringing the same United States patents regarding marine seismic streamer steering devices by planning to use certain equipment purchased from the Company on a survey located outside of U.S. territorial waters. The court approved the consolidation of the Fugro case with the case against the Company. Fugro filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and in March 2011 the presiding judge granted Fugro’s motion to dismiss in part, on the basis that the alleged activities of Fugro would occur more than 12 miles from the U.S. coast and therefore are not actionable under U.S. patent infringement law. On February 21, 2012, the Court granted WesternGeco’s motions for summary judgment related to the Company’s claims as plaintiff against WesternGeco for infringement, inventorship and inequitable conduct. In response to a Motion for Summary Judgment filed jointly by the Company and Fugro, the Court ruled on April 25, 2012 that the Company did not directly infringe WesternGeco’s method patent claims. On June 29, 2012, the Court ruled that, if the particular patent claim is held to be valid and enforceable at the upcoming trial in the lawsuit, the Company’s DigiFIN™ lateral streamer control system, when combined with the Company’s lateral controller in the United States, would infringe one claim in one of WesternGeco’s asserted patents, U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520.

The trial in the lawsuit began on July 23, 2012 and, as of the filing date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, has not yet resulted in a jury verdict or judgment. If, at trial, the judge or jury agrees with the Company and determines that the above patent claim is invalid, the pre-trial infringement finding will have no effect and the patent claim will be declared void and unenforceable. If the judge or jury determines that the above patent claim is valid and enforceable, the Company will then be liable to WesternGeco for infringement damages in an amount to be determined by the jury. If the patent claim is determined to be valid and the infringement finding is upheld, the Company will then have the right to ask the Court to enter a judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict and, if unsuccessful with the Court, to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Based on the Company’s review of the lawsuit filed by WesternGeco and the WesternGeco patents at issue, the Company believes that its products do not infringe any valid WesternGeco patents and that the claims asserted against the Company by WesternGeco are without merit and that the ultimate outcome of the claims against it will not result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. The Company intends to continue to defend the claims against it vigorously.

Fletcher

In November 2009, Fletcher International Ltd. (“Fletcher”), the holder of the shares of the Company’s outstanding Series D Preferred Stock until June 2012, when the shares were sold to an affiliate of the investment firm D. E. Shaw, filed a lawsuit against the Company and certain of its directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery. In the lawsuit, styled Fletcher International, Ltd. v. ION Geophysical Corporation, et al, Fletcher alleged, among other things, that the Company violated Fletcher’s consent rights contained in the Series D Preferred Stock Certificates of Designation, by (a) ION Sàrl’s execution and delivery of a convertible promissory note to the Bank of China, New York Branch, in connection with a bridge loan funded in October 2009 by Bank of China, and (b) another subsidiary of the Company executing and delivering several promissory notes in 2008 in connection with the Company’s acquisition of ARAM Systems Ltd., and that ION’s directors violated their fiduciary duty to the Company by allowing the subsidiaries to deliver the notes without Fletcher’s consent. In a Memorandum Opinion issued in May 2010 in response to a motion for partial summary judgment, the judge dismissed all of Fletcher’s claims against the named Company directors but also concluded that, because the bridge loan note executed by ION Sàrl in 2009 was convertible into ION common stock, Fletcher had the right to consent to the issuance of the note and that the Company violated Fletcher’s consent right by ION Sàrl issuing the note without Fletcher’s consent. In December 2010, the presiding judge in the case recused himself from the case and a new presiding judge was appointed to the case. In March 2011, the judge dismissed certain of the claims asserted by Fletcher. In May 2012, the judge ruled that Fletcher did not have the right to consent with respect to two promissory notes executed and delivered in September 2008 in connection with the Company’s purchase of ARAM Systems Ltd., but that Fletcher did have the right to consent to the execution and delivery in December 2008 of a replacement promissory note in the principal amount of $35 million, and that the Company violated Fletcher’s consent right by a Company subsidiary’s executing and delivering the replacement promissory note without Fletcher’s consent. The Company believes that the monetary damages suffered by Fletcher as a result of the Company’s subsidiaries executing and delivering the two notes without Fletcher’s consent are nonexistent or nominal, and that the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit will not result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Sercel

In January 2010, the jury in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by the Company against seismic equipment provider Sercel, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas returned a verdict in the Company’s favor. In the lawsuit, styled Input/Output, Inc. et al v. Sercel, Inc., (5-06-cv-00236), the Company alleged that Sercel’s 408, 428 and SeaRay digital seismic sensor units infringe the Company’s United States Patent No. 5,852,242, which is incorporated in the Company’s VectorSeis^® sensor technology. Products of the Company or INOVA Geophysical that are compatible with the VectorSeis technology include Scorpion^®, ARIES^® II, FireFly^®, Hawk ^TM and VectorSeis Ocean seismic acquisition systems. The jury concluded that Sercel infringed the Company’s patent and that the Company’s patent was valid, and the jury awarded the Company $25.2 million in compensatory past damages. In response to post-verdict motions made by the parties, in September 2010, the presiding judge issued a series of rulings that (a) granted the Company’s motion for a permanent injunction to be issued prohibiting the manufacture, use or sale of the infringing Sercel products, (b) confirmed that the Company’s patent was valid, (c) confirmed that the jury’s finding of infringement was supported by the evidence and (d) disallowed $5.4 million of lost profits that were based on infringing products that were manufactured and delivered by Sercel outside of the United States, but were offered for sale by Sercel in the United States and involved underlying orders and payments received by Sercel in the United States. In addition, the judge concluded that the evidence supporting the jury’s finding that the Company was entitled to be awarded $9.0 million in lost profits associated with certain infringing pre-verdict marine sales by Sercel was too speculative and therefore disallowed that award of lost profits. As a result of the judge’s ruling, the Company is now entitled to be awarded an additional amount of damages equal to a reasonable royalty on the infringing pre-verdict Sercel marine sales. After the Company learned that Sercel continued to make sales of infringing products after the January 2010 jury verdict was rendered, the Company filed motions with the court to seek additional compensatory damages for the post-verdict infringing sales and enhanced damages as a result of the willful nature of Sercel’s post-verdict infringement. In February 2011, the Court entered a final judgment and permanent injunction in the case. The final judgment awarded the Company $10.7 million in damages, plus interest, and the permanent injunction prohibits Sercel and parties acting in concert with Sercel from making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing in the United States (which includes territorial waters of the United States) Sercel’s 408UL, 428XL and SeaRay digital sensor units, and all other products that are only colorably different from those products. The Court ordered that the additional damages to be paid by Sercel as a reasonable royalty on the infringing pre-verdict Sercel marine sales and the additional damages to be paid by Sercel resulting from post-verdict infringing sales would be determined in a separate future proceeding. Sercel and the Company appealed portions of the final judgment, and on February 17, 2012, the appellate court upheld the final judgment. In April 2012, Sercel paid the Company $12.0 million pursuant to the final judgment.

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

Financial Impact of Gain and Loss Contingencies

Upon receipt of the payment from Sercel regarding the final judgment discussed above, the Company recorded a gain of approximately $12.0 million. Additionally, the Company recorded a loss contingency of approximately $10.0 million in connection with certain other legal matters discussed elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Both amounts were reflected within Other Income (Expense) during the three months ended June 30, 2012.