Consider the possibility that Ward could have conceived his competing product while an employee of Taser, but he only worked on his ideas in his Taser-provided office after regular working hours. When so doing, he made calls to patent attorneys, to product development companies, and to a business-plan development firm. Would the appellate court's ruling have been the same?

The appellate court's ruling might have been favor to Ward.,because ward does not made any " Breach of Fiduciary Duty". against Taser.

Explanation:

Ward  have conceived his competing product while an employee of Taser, but he only worked on his ideas in his Taser-provided office after regular working hours. Here the problem assumed is Breach of Fiduciary Duty., It means The plaintiff (Taser) must affected by the defendant (Ward)  by failed to do his duty by withholding pertinent information, misuse of owner's funds, abusing  his position of influence, failing in his responsibilities or misrepresenting the statement of fact.

But in this case ward does not do anything against the Taser. Ward develop his ideas only after his working hours .,The ideas has been created by ward's own knowledge .,and not from the Taser's knowledge or ideas.,so ward may supported by law .,also he may get appellate court's favors too.,