NEW DENTAL BILL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22209, 9 September 1935, Page 11

NEW DENTAL BILL

EIGHTS OF PATENTEES QUESTION OF CONFLICT SUGGESTED SAFEGUARD It has been announced in the House of Representatives that the Minister of Health, Sir Alexander Young, intends to introduce a bill to create a dental council. A regulation in the bill, which is to amend the Dentists Act, 15)08, and was submitted to dentists in ]930 and 1933, raises the question of how far the bill conflicts with the existing patent laws, the regulation stating that no dentist or firm, association or company carrying on the practice of dentistry shall advertise any claim of the use of exclusive apparatus in the practice of dentistry. The matter was taken tip some time ago with the New Zealand Dental Association by Mr. T. E. Bridger, of the Dentists Company. For about sixmonths the association, through its legal attorneys, fought the contention that there was any infringement of or conflict with the patent statutes, and they based their contention on the assumption that a patentee or the licensee ot a patent was not the same as a dentist, as a dentist, and that therefore the Act in any of its applications did not apply to a patentee or the licensee of a patent. Conferences and Arguments After many conferences and technical arguments the association in November, 1933, gave Mr. Bridger the following assurance: —"Whether it be desirable or not, the proposed regulations, in our opinion, clearly do not restrict advertising of patented articles by a patentee or licensee, and there is no intention on the part of the promoters of the bill to do so. If all that Mr. Bridger is concerned with is the right of a patentee or licensee to advertise his patented article as such we can see no objection to the inclusion in the bill of a clause designed to make this clear beyond all doubt." Mr. Bridger states this represents an assurance from at least 80 per cent of the dentists of New Zealand, being members of the association, that he might advertise, for instance, a patented denture together with its price, provided ho advertised as a patentee, and not as a dentist. The Act, however, enables a dentist to insert a card at any time in any newspaper, so that there is nothing to prevent a dentist, the holder of a patent, advertising that patent and inserting his card as a dentist in the same newspaper. In order clearly to show the position Mr. Bridger filed a patent in Wellington which dealt wholly with the performance of a dental operation. The Dental Act as it stands to-day, he states, makes it compulsory, and rightly so, that only a dentist, as a dentist, can perform a dental operation. Therefore only a dentist, as a dentist, could become the licensee of a patent which involved wholly and solely a dental operation. "Impossible Situation"

"The assurance the association has given me makes it compulsory under the Dentists Act for a dentist to advertise as a dentist licensee and it is laid down by patent law that he must acquaint the public with the fact that he is the holder of a licensed invention, and he must offer it to the public," said Mr. Bridger. "Therefore, if the Dental Council endeavoured to prevent a dentist from making known to the public as a dentist licensee that ho is the holder of an exclusive process or apparatus, it would be a direct infringement of the patent laws. While it is part of the Dentists Act that only a dentist, as a dentist, can perform a dental operation, then it is impossible for the Government to allow a Dental Council to prevent the exploitation of a patent in any manner while remaining a party to the International Patent. Convention.

"The only way in which this impossible situation can be avoided is by the insertion of a clause in the bill which will definitely prevent the Dental Council from having any say or control whatever over matters relating to patents, and leave them under the control of the Commissioner of Patents, as at present," Mr. Bridger concluded.