T-Mobile Beats Q1 Earnings Expectations on Strong Postpaid Growth 
Time to buy local: war fuel price shocks reveal the folly of a long food supply chain 
Samsung Reports Record Profit as AI Boom Drives Memory Chip Demand 
The pandemic is still disrupting young people’s careers 
Tokyo Inflation Slows Despite Energy Pressures and BOJ Policy Outlook 
Want to cut your energy bills? Here’s how five experts are doing it 
AI Stocks Rally in Asia as Oil Surge and Hawkish Central Banks Shake Global Markets 
Seagate Stock Surges After Strong Q3 Earnings Beat and Bullish Outlook 
Asian Stock Markets Rise Amid Wall Street Rally and U.S.-Iran Tensions 
Micro Systemation Reports Q1 Loss Amid Strategic Investments and Revenue Growth 
Apple Q2 2026 Earnings Surge as iPhone 17 Sales Drive Record Revenue 
How to support someone who is grieving: five research-backed strategies 
6 simple questions to tell if a ‘finfluencer’ is more flash than cash 
Columbia Student Mahmoud Khalil Fights Arrest as Deportation Case Moves to New Jersey 
Starbucks Raises 2026 Outlook as Turnaround Strategy Boosts Sales and Earnings 
WuXi AppTec Stock Surges on Strong Q1 Earnings and CRDMO Demand Growth 
The American mass exodus to Canada amid Trump 2.0 has yet to materialize 
A federal judge has dismissed a 2019 lawsuit against Starbucks, filed by Balmuccino LLC, accusing the coffee giant of stealing its coffee-flavored lip balm trade secrets. The judge ruled that Balmuccino LLC waited too long to file the case in federal court.
The trade secret claim against Starbucks is over after a federal judge dismisses the lawsuit on technical grounds. The case was said to have been filed after the company launched its S'mores Frapuccino lip gloss in 2019.
According to Courthouse News Service, Starbucks was cleared because the complainant, Balmuccino LLC, waited too long to file the lawsuit in federal court. The latter sued SB for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. Still, U.S. District Judge John Chun explained that the case was tossed out because of the lack of jurisdiction over Starbucks since it was filed in a state court in California.
The judge sided with Starbucks after applying Washington state law instead of the more lenient California state law. He referred to the former to answer whether Balmuccino could still go after its claims after the statute of limitations expired.
"Balmuccino draws on California's more forgiving tolling law to argue that declining to toll the statutes of limitations during the pendency of the state-court action is bad public policy," Judge Chun stated. "Balmuccino may have a point that requiring a plaintiff to concurrently file separate actions in two different jurisdictions is inefficient and laborious. Yet this is the tolling policy that Washington has apparently adopted."
He added, "Even assuming that Balmuccino reasonably asserted personal jurisdiction in California at the outset of litigation, Balmuccino was on notice that it might need to file elsewhere at least as of June 2020, prior to the expiration of the limitations periods lessens the force of its policy argument that it would be unfair or redundant to have to concurrently file multiple suits in multiple jurisdictions."
In response to the dismissal of the lawsuit, Reuters reported that Eduardo Martorell, Balmuccino's lawyer, said they think the case was wrongly decided, so they will appeal the decision or re-file the suit in New York. He added that they would not stop fighting until the courts allow Balmuccino to be heard on the merits.
