Booked to travel through the Middle East? Here’s why you shouldn’t cancel your flight 
Gold Prices Steady in Asia, Set for Strong February Gains on Safe-Haven Demand 
Argentina Tax Reform 2026: President Javier Milei Pushes Lower Taxes and Structural Changes 
AI is driving down the price of knowledge – universities have to rethink what they offer 
What’s the difference between baking powder and baking soda? It’s subtle, but significant 
APEX Tech Acquisition Inc. Raises $111.97 Million in NYSE IPO Under Ticker TRADU 
Why a ‘rip-off’ degree might be worth the money after all – research study 
Panama Investigates CK Hutchison’s Port Unit After Court Voids Canal Contracts 
China’s New Home Prices Post Sharpest Drop Since 2022 Amid Ongoing Property Slump 
Boeing Secures $166.8 Million U.S. Navy Contract for P-8A Engineering and Software Support 
Global Markets React as Dollar Surges, Swiss Franc Rallies After U.S.-Israel Strike on Iran 
FCC Approves Charter Communications’ $34.5 Billion Acquisition of Cox Communications 
Oil Prices Surge 13% as U.S.-Israel Strikes on Iran Spark Supply Fears 
Yes, government influences wages – but not just in the way you might think 
Wall Street Futures Tumble as U.S.-Iran Conflict Escalates and Oil Prices Surge 
The Beauty Beneath the Expressway: A Journey from Self to Service 
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.
