Qantas Shares Climb as Long-Haul Pilot Deal Eases Strike Concerns 
Iran-Oman Near Strait of Hormuz Deal as Shipping Tensions Persist 
Asian Currencies Hold Steady as US Dollar Nears Seven-Week Low Ahead of Key Jobs Data 
Disaster or digital spectacle? The dangers of using floods to create social media content 
Want to cut your energy bills? Here’s how five experts are doing it 
How to support someone who is grieving: five research-backed strategies 
SoftBank Q1 Profit Beats Forecast as Intel Rally and OpenAI Investments Boost Returns 
Philippine GDP Growth Slows to 2.3% in Q2 
Booked to travel through the Middle East? Here’s why you shouldn’t cancel your flight 
Asian Stocks Cautious Ahead of US Jobs Data as Oil Rises 
Alphabet Stock Slides as Google AI Pioneer Jeff Dean Exits to Launch Discovery Loop 
Gold Prices Steady as Hormuz Tensions Fuel Fed Rate Concerns 
The ghost of Robodebt – Federal Court rules billions of dollars in welfare debts must be recalculated 
AMP Shares Surge 13% After Strong Profit and A$150 Million Buyback 
Google promotes ‘teacher approved’ apps for kids. Here’s what parents should know 
China Exports Beat July Forecasts as AI Demand Fuels High-Tech Trade 
Heineken H1 Operating Profit Meets Forecast as Beer Volumes Beat Expectations 
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.
