Tencent Shares Slide After WeChat Restricts YuanBao AI Promotional Links 
6 simple questions to tell if a ‘finfluencer’ is more flash than cash 
Toyota’s Surprise CEO Change Signals Strategic Shift Amid Global Auto Turmoil 
Trump Lifts 25% Tariff on Indian Goods in Strategic U.S.–India Trade and Energy Deal 
U.S.-India Trade Framework Signals Major Shift in Tariffs, Energy, and Supply Chains 
Gold and Silver Prices Rebound After Volatile Week Triggered by Fed Nomination 
Ford and Geely Explore Strategic Manufacturing Partnership in Europe 
Canada’s local food system faces major roadblocks without urgent policy changes 
Columbia Student Mahmoud Khalil Fights Arrest as Deportation Case Moves to New Jersey 
Nvidia, ByteDance, and the U.S.-China AI Chip Standoff Over H200 Exports 
India–U.S. Interim Trade Pact Cuts Auto Tariffs but Leaves Tesla Out 
Bank of Japan Signals Readiness for Near-Term Rate Hike as Inflation Nears Target 
SpaceX Prioritizes Moon Mission Before Mars as Starship Development Accelerates 
Vietnam’s Trade Surplus With US Jumps as Exports Surge and China Imports Hit Record 
Why a ‘rip-off’ degree might be worth the money after all – research study 
Prudential Financial Reports Higher Q4 Profit on Strong Underwriting and Investment Gains 
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.
