A trade secret is information having a commercial value. A trade secret can take the form of customer lists to special techniques. To have a trade secret violation, the accused has to have disseminated or misappropriated the information. Factors that can prove this include whether there was improper means in gaining the information and if the use of these materials constituted a breach of duty.
In this case, these "trades secrets" were kept in an employee's car. There is no evidence that they had any commercial value, that extra effort was exercised to keep them confidential, or that H disseminated the information for commercial profit, etc.
Therefore, H will probably not be found guilty of a trade secret violation.
W will prevail under the Fair Use Exception of the Copyright Act. W is using copied excerpts to teach his student, not for commercial profit. He is also only using partial sections. Thus, W did not violate the Copyright Act.
The court finds that a patent that is based on medley of old functions, has no innovative changes and is well-known within the market, is not patentable. They go on to say that a process that is relatively obvious based on existing market items that the method employed in the process is obvious. If the process in question is intuitively related to old processes, like in the case of someone using a previous method to create an item, then it will likely not be patentable.