Hasbro v. Daisy Manufacturing: ITC Soft-Projectile Launcher Patent Dispute Settles
Hasbro, Inc. brought an ITC Section 337 infringement action against Daisy Manufacturing Company over two patents covering soft-projectile launching devices. The investigation ran for 1,246 days before the parties reached a settlement, avoiding a full ITC exclusion order determination.
Hasbro’s ITC Section 337 action against Daisy: a toy-launcher IP showdown
On 21 July 2022, Hasbro, Inc. filed ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1325 against Daisy Manufacturing Company, alleging infringement of US8640683B2 and US8371282B2 — both directed at soft-projectile launching device technology. The action was brought before the United States International Trade Commission in Washington, D.C., presided over by Administrative Law Judge MaryJoan McNamara. Hasbro was represented by Fish & Richardson LLP, while Daisy retained Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
The investigation closed on 18 December 2025, with the basis of termination recorded as settlement. In ITC proceedings, a settlement typically results in the issuance of a consent order or withdrawal of the complaint, ending the investigation before any exclusion or cease-and-desist order is decided on the merits. The specific financial terms and any licensing arrangement between Hasbro and Daisy remain confidential per the parties’ agreement.
The 1,246-day duration — over three years — suggests the investigation proceeded through substantial discovery and potentially evidentiary hearings before the parties resolved their dispute. What drove the ultimate settlement, including any product design modifications or cross-licensing agreed to by Daisy, is not disclosed in the public record. The absence of a final exclusion order leaves Daisy’s import position formally unresolved by the Commission on the merits.
Filing to Case Settled in 1246 days
1,246-day investigation — longer than the median ITC Section 337 proceeding
Case settled: what the resolution means for Hasbro and Daisy
Section 337 settlement: investigation ends without exclusion order
When an ITC Section 337 investigation settles, the complainant typically withdraws its complaint or the parties enter a consent order. The Commission terminates the investigation without issuing an exclusion or cease-and-desist order on the merits. This means the underlying patent validity and infringement questions are never adjudicated publicly, preserving both patents’ presumptive enforceability.
No merits adjudicationHasbro avoids adverse ruling; patents remain intact
Settlement at the ITC is typically favourable for the patent holder when it secures commercial relief — whether a licensing arrangement, royalty stream, or Daisy’s agreement to modify or cease importing the accused products. Critically, neither US8640683B2 nor US8371282B2 was invalidated or found unenforceable, leaving Hasbro’s IP arsenal available for future enforcement against other parties.
Patents survive; enforceability preservedDaisy avoids exclusion order but terms undisclosed
By settling, Daisy Manufacturing avoids the most significant ITC remedy — a general exclusion order barring import of infringing goods. However, the confidential settlement may include licensing obligations, royalty payments, or product design constraints. The public record does not confirm whether Daisy admitted infringement or agreed to stop importing the accused soft-projectile launchers.
No exclusion order; terms confidentialHasbro’s patents signal ongoing IP risk for toy launcher market
The settlement leaves two active Hasbro patents on soft-projectile launching technology fully enforceable. Competitors and importers in the foam blaster and toy launcher space should treat US8640683B2 and US8371282B2 as live enforcement risks. The ITC’s broad import jurisdiction means any future infringer faces the prospect of a full exclusion order without the settlement option necessarily available again.
Live IP risk for toy launcher importersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hasbro, Inc. | Company | Consumer toy and game company — holder of US8640683B2 and US8371282B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Daisy Manufacturing Company | Company | Daisy Manufacturing Company — maker of soft-projectile launching productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian P. Boyd | Attorney | Counsel for Hasbro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hasbro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paul F. Brinkman | Attorney | Counsel for Daisy Manufacturing CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kirkland & Ellis, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Daisy Manufacturing CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge MaryJoan McNamara | Judge | United States International Trade CommissionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The recorded verdict of ‘Participant Disposition: Settlement’ with basis ‘Case Settled’ indicates the ITC investigation was terminated by agreement of the parties before any final Initial Determination or Commission Opinion on infringement or validity. This is consistent with ITC Rule 210.21, under which a complaint may be withdrawn or a consent order entered. No substantive findings on infringement of US8640683B2 or US8371282B2 were issued, and neither patent’s validity was tested before the Commission.
US8640683B2 & US8371282B2 — soft-projectile launching device patents
US8640683B2 (application no. US13/761082) and US8371282B2 (application no. US12/777134) are utility patents covering soft-projectile launching device technology — the technical domain underlying foam-dart and similar toy blaster products. The patents were asserted by Hasbro as the basis for its ITC Section 337 complaint, suggesting they cover functional and/or structural elements central to how such devices propel soft projectiles. Both patents carry a presumption of validity under US law.
In the competitive toy blaster market — dominated by brands such as Hasbro’s Nerf line — foundational launching mechanism patents carry significant strategic value. Asserting two patents simultaneously at the ITC strengthens the complainant’s position by broadening claim coverage and complicating a respondent’s design-around efforts. For competitors and OEM manufacturers supplying similar devices, these patents represent material freedom-to-operate risk, particularly given Hasbro’s demonstrated willingness to pursue multi-year ITC enforcement.
Should your team run an FTO against US8640683B2 and US8371282B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing soft-projectile launching devices — including foam-dart blasters, air-powered toy guns, and similar products — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against both Hasbro patents before commercialisation. The ITC settlement in this case did not produce any claim narrowing, invalidity finding, or non-infringement ruling that competitors can rely upon. The risk horizon is active.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US8640683B2 and US8371282B2 against your product specifications, flag overlapping prior art, and surface related Hasbro portfolio patents that may present additional exposure. Eureka’s landscape view also identifies design-around opportunities and monitors new continuations or divisionals that could extend Hasbro’s coverage into adjacent product categories.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8640683B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ITC Section 337 cases in soft-projectile and toy device IP
Explore Section 337 investigations before the USITC involving toy mechanisms, soft-projectile launchers, and consumer product patent enforcement comparable to Hasbro v. Daisy.
What this case signals for the toy launcher IP landscape
Hasbro’s willingness to pursue a multi-year ITC investigation signals serious enforcement intent around its soft-projectile launching patent portfolio.
ITC is Hasbro’s preferred venue for import-based toy IP enforcement
Filing at the ITC — rather than district court — signals Hasbro targeted Daisy’s imported products directly. The ITC’s exclusion order remedy is more commercially disruptive than damages alone, making it the preferred forum when the accused infringer relies on overseas manufacturing. Companies importing toy launcher products should assess exposure to both asserted patents before market entry.
Three-year investigation duration suggests hard-fought proceedings
A 1,246-day ITC investigation is notably prolonged. This timeline is consistent with contested claim construction, evidentiary hearings before the ALJ, and possibly post-hearing briefing before settlement was reached. Parties facing similar ITC actions should budget for extended proceedings even when commercial settlement is the probable endgame.
Hasbro v Daisy — key questions answered
ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1325 was terminated by settlement on 18 December 2025 after 1,246 days. No exclusion order or cease-and-desist order was issued. The specific settlement terms, including any licensing arrangement or product modification obligations, are not part of the public record.
Hasbro asserted two patents: US8640683B2 (application US13/761082) and US8371282B2 (application US12/777134). Both patents cover soft-projectile launching device technology. Neither patent was found invalid or unenforceable as the case settled before any merits determination.
In a Section 337 investigation, a settlement typically results in the complainant withdrawing its complaint or the parties entering a consent order, both of which terminate the investigation without a merits ruling on infringement or validity. The Commission issues no exclusion order on the merits, but a consent order, if entered, creates independently enforceable ITC obligations.
Yes. Because the ITC investigation settled without any finding of invalidity or unenforceability, both patents remain fully presumptively valid and enforceable. Hasbro retains the right to assert them in future ITC or district court proceedings against other parties importing or selling allegedly infringing soft-projectile launching devices.
Standard ITC investigations are typically completed within 15–18 months from institution. A duration of 1,246 days — approximately 3.4 years — is notably longer than average and is consistent with contested proceedings involving extensive discovery, claim construction, and evidentiary hearings before the Administrative Law Judge prior to settlement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.