Trump Unveils $3 Billion U.S. Critical Minerals Push 
Glencore Posts Strong H1 2026 Earnings, Announces ASX Secondary Listing 
SanDisk Q4 Earnings Beat Estimates as Q1 Revenue Outlook Meets Expectations 
6 simple questions to tell if a ‘finfluencer’ is more flash than cash 
Nvidia to Invest Up to $3 Billion in Blackstone-Backed Lancium 
Sinopec Boosts Russian ESPO Oil Purchases as Middle East Supply Tightens 
US Yen Intervention Unlikely to Deliver Lasting Recovery, Yardeni Says 
Gold Prices Steady as Hormuz Tensions Fuel Fed Rate Concerns 
Can your cat recognise you by scent? New study shows it’s likely 
China Trade Surplus Beats Forecasts in July as Exports Stay Strong 
Asian Currencies Hold Steady as US Dollar Nears Seven-Week Low Ahead of Key Jobs Data 
Alibaba Plans Revenue-Sharing Model for Qwen3.8-Max AI Commercial Users 
Britain has almost 1 million young people not in work or education – here’s what evidence shows can change that 
Berkshire Hathaway Cash Falls as Abel Boosts Stock Buybacks 
Delta Flight Makes Emergency Landing in Atlanta After Cockpit Fumes Reported 
AMP Shares Surge 13% After Strong Profit and A$150 Million Buyback 
Nintendo Shares Jump as Switch 2 Sales Boost Earnings 
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.
