Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-11-07
THE DENTISTS INTERESTED.
A Patent infringement Case That Concerns the
Profession.

The verdict. which has just been rem
dered in the United States Circuit court
in New York which when enforced
through other suits may make every
dentist in the country liable to thu. In
ternational Tooth Crown Co. for larc.
sums as royalties for bridge work. has
not caused much stir among the MEM
bers of that profession All over the
country. 1t is thought extremely doubt
lul If any of the suits are brought with
in the confines of Maine.
The verdict. which was returned nj
the end of a fierce five days court bat
tie is of considerable interest to dem
tists throughout the county. 1t ends
htiearioa which has lasted continually
-" the past Ii years and which in
wolves the possible payment of Sla.ono
40 or more by the 1000 dentists
throughout the country.
The story OF the suit is a simple one
Notwithstanding the length of time
which IL has been before the courts IN
1881, DR.. James Low of Chicago oh
tanned patent which has since formed
the basis OF the bridge work Of al the
dentists Of the world who keep in touch
with the progress % their profession.
pr. Low provided for the building Of
i bridge between two solid teeth by an
choring it on each side with a clamp
about good tooth. It took the place
OF a system of bridging by drilling
holes in the solid teeth and inserting
pronsS that extended sideways from
tn" bridge. Dr.. Lows Invention Was
sold to DR.. LUcius T. Sheffield, of New
YORK. the inventor receiving in return
S2"co a year for the life Of his patent.
or A1i,0o0 altogether - per cent. of
all royalties collected. ana an interest
in the international Tooth Crown 90
Or. Sheffield organized the company in
the early eighties to put forward thu
Richmond tooth crown. now univtr-
sally used by dentists, but then new.
nc bought the bridge patent 10 20 with
the crown patents, but MS soon lift
with only the bridge rights. for the
crown patent was declared void after
litigation.
DIR. Sheffield. - introduce the crown
and bridge work. had to establish Il
school and teach dentists tn" methods
He soon had 200 dentists as students.
ana IL addition he had private prac-
tice that kept 80 operators busy.
He advertised that he would 10 the
bridge and crown work and he Ii
cenScu his graduates TO 10 it. This
aroused opposition throughout the
country, and in addition to his patents
being attached. dentists condemned his
new methods IS wrong. At the trial
just ended several OF the ~ AMI more
dentists who testified for the DcntiSts'
Protective Association. and who were
themselves using the bridge device in
their practice. testified that il was OF
no value.
DR. Sheffield said just before hi re-
cent death the dentists owed him So
600. 900 in royalties.
The suit FOR the infringement Of the
patent was brought by Dr. Shcfilcld's
widow against the Hanks Dental Asso-
citation Of New York and a verdict Of
$500 was given to her. The result of
the suit affects every dentist who put
i'll bridge work in tho United States be
fore 1895 and it is said that many 0:
the IooIe prominent will lie sued.
The Dentists Protective. Association
has been organized by those who have
infringed the patent throughout the
country Tor the sole purpose OF lighting
these cases. Each dentist pays go for
membership and the association pays
tho cost Of fighting the suit. Several
Maine dentists are members 81 the as
ISOLATION.
1T is Very doubtful. in my opinion,
If any suits of this sort are Drought In
Augusta or in Maine, said Well
known local dentist TO reporter.
"rnIoubtcdlv some of tn" dentists her"
hav. infrinsed tn. patent but neverthe-
less the damages which could be recoV-
cred would be comparatively small and
hardly worth the trouble ana expense
Of y suit Many of the larger dental
concerns throughout the country viii
nronably have TO pay handsomely. Out
size of this there will probably he but