Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	15. Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, the Company is involved in various claims, regulatory agency audits, investigations and legal actions involving a variety of matters. As of September 30, 2025, in the ordinary course of business, the Company recorded reserves in an amount believed to be sufficient, given the estimated range of potential outcomes, for contingent liabilities believed to be probable. These estimated liabilities are based on the Company’s assessment of the nature of these matters, their progress toward resolution, the advice of legal counsel and outside experts as well as management’s experience. The litigation process and the outcome of regulatory oversight is inherently uncertain, and our best judgment concerning the probable outcome of litigation or regulatory enforcement matters may prove to be incorrect. No assurance can be given as to the outcome of these matters. The total potential loss on these matters cannot be determined; however, in our opinion, any ultimate liability, to the extent not otherwise provided for, should not materially affect our financial position, cash flows or results of operations. The Company is currently pursuing litigation against several companies involving royalties due under licenses for technology related to drill bits. This technology resulted in a portfolio of patents related to leaching technology, a revolutionary technology owned by the Company that improves the performance of drill bits and other products utilizing certain synthetic diamond parts. The Company previously sued several drill bit manufacturers for patent infringement and those lawsuits were resolved by a series of licensing agreements with various drill bit manufacturers. To settle and end litigation or to avoid litigation, the licensees were provided access to the portfolio of leaching patents owned by the Company in exchange for a royalty payment, as defined in each license agreement. The companies agreed to pay the royalties for the right to use the portfolio of patents, whether they used some, all or none of the specific patented claims in any particular patent. The license agreements provide that they terminate on the date of the last to expire of the patents in the licensed portfolio. Having obtained the benefit of these licenses for more than a decade, all of the drill bit manufacturer licensees unilaterally stopped making royalty payments even though all of the patents in the portfolio have not expired. These companies have asserted, among other reasons, that they are entitled to stop making these payments because they claim to not manufacture products covered by the unexpired patents. Some of these companies stopped making payments after the expiration of what are allegedly the patents in the portfolio that they elected to use. Others paid for some period of time after that date but have since stopped making payments. The Company has sued asserting that failure to pay the royalties is a breach of the license agreements at issue. The Company is in litigation with most of the licensees seeking a judicial determination that it is entitled to be paid royalties pursuant to the terms of the licenses. The licensees have responded with a number of alleged defenses and requests for declaratory judgment all focused on avoiding the payments called for under the licenses. The parties’ legal filings to date can be found in the following cases: Grant Prideco, Inc., et al. v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., et al., No. 4:23-cv-00730; Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Grant Prideco, Inc., et al., No. 4:23-cv-01789; and Grant Prideco, Inc., et al. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations Inc., et al., No. 4:25-cv-03459, all in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. We have also recently initiated litigation against Taurex Drill Bits. The legal filings to date can be found in the case Grant Prideco, Inc., et al. v. Taurex Drill Bits, L.L.C., No. 25-BC11B-0065, in the Eleventh Business Court Division for Harris County, Texas. On September 29, 2025, and October 7, 2025, in the lawsuits against Halliburton, Ulterra and Varel, the Court issued two rulings, the effect of which is that NOV cannot collect royalties under the License Agreements, after the date each Licensee stopped making royalty payments. NOV believes the Court’s ruling is incorrect, and once the Court has entered an appealable order in each case, NOV intends to appeal the Court’s rulings. While the Company continues to strongly believe that the royalties for which it has sued are due and owing pursuant to the terms of the licensing agreements, there is inherent risk with the related litigation and the Company makes no assurances as to the outcome of such litigation. See Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for discussion of the financial impact of royalties.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

15. Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, the Company is involved in various claims, regulatory agency audits, investigations and legal actions involving a variety of matters. As of September 30, 2025, in the ordinary course of business, the Company recorded reserves in an amount believed to be sufficient, given the estimated range of potential outcomes, for contingent liabilities believed to be probable. These estimated liabilities are based on the Company’s assessment of the nature of these matters, their progress toward resolution, the advice of legal counsel and outside experts as well as management’s experience. The litigation process and the outcome of regulatory oversight is inherently uncertain, and our best judgment concerning the probable outcome of litigation or regulatory enforcement matters may prove to be incorrect. No assurance can be given as to the outcome of these matters. The total potential loss on these matters cannot be determined; however, in our opinion, any ultimate liability, to the extent not otherwise provided for, should not materially affect our financial position, cash flows or results of operations.

The Company is currently pursuing litigation against several companies involving royalties due under licenses for technology related to drill bits. This technology resulted in a portfolio of patents related to leaching technology, a revolutionary technology owned by the Company that improves the performance of drill bits and other products utilizing certain synthetic diamond parts. The Company previously sued several drill bit manufacturers for patent infringement and those lawsuits were resolved by a series of licensing agreements with various drill bit manufacturers. To settle and end litigation or to avoid litigation, the licensees were provided access to the portfolio of leaching patents owned by the Company in exchange for a royalty payment, as defined in each license agreement. The companies agreed to pay the royalties for the right to use the portfolio of patents, whether they used some, all or none of the specific patented claims in any particular patent. The license agreements provide that they terminate on the date of the last to expire of the patents in the licensed portfolio. Having obtained the benefit of these licenses for more than a decade, all of the drill bit manufacturer licensees unilaterally stopped making royalty payments even though all of the patents in the portfolio have not expired. These companies have asserted, among other reasons, that they are entitled to stop making these payments because they claim to not manufacture products covered by the unexpired patents. Some of these companies stopped making payments after the expiration of what are allegedly the patents in the portfolio that they elected to use. Others paid for some period of time after that date but have since stopped making payments. The Company has sued asserting that failure to pay the royalties is a breach of the license agreements at issue. The Company is in litigation with most of the licensees seeking a judicial determination that it is entitled to be paid royalties pursuant to the terms of the licenses. The licensees have responded with a number of alleged defenses and requests for declaratory judgment all focused on avoiding the payments called for under the licenses. The parties’ legal filings to date can be found in the following cases: Grant Prideco, Inc., et al. v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., et al., No. 4:23-cv-00730; Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Grant Prideco, Inc., et al., No. 4:23-cv-01789; and Grant Prideco, Inc., et al. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations Inc., et al., No. 4:25-cv-03459, all in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. We have also recently initiated litigation against Taurex Drill Bits. The legal filings to date can be found in the case Grant Prideco, Inc., et al. v. Taurex Drill Bits, L.L.C., No. 25-BC11B-0065, in the Eleventh Business Court Division for Harris County, Texas. On September 29, 2025, and October 7, 2025, in the lawsuits against Halliburton, Ulterra and Varel, the Court issued two rulings, the effect of which is that NOV cannot collect royalties under the License Agreements, after the date each Licensee stopped making royalty payments. NOV believes the Court’s ruling is incorrect, and once the Court has entered an appealable order in each case, NOV intends to appeal the Court’s rulings. While the Company continues to strongly believe that the royalties for which it has sued are due and owing pursuant to the terms of the licensing agreements, there is inherent risk with the related litigation and the Company makes no assurances as to the outcome of such litigation. See Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for discussion of the financial impact of royalties.