Replies to post #5504 on DarkPulse Inc (DPLS)

[TenKay]

That’s not what the disclosures say. Rights are different than assignment. The disclosure suggests that DPLS owns the patent via assignment.

But the problem with that is that the USPTO does not show that. At all.

When this issue was first raised two years ago, Dennis tweeted about it (I linked to earlier) suggesting they were GOING TO PURCHASE the patent. Which actually contradicted what was in the filing that they had been assigned the patent 10 years ago....in other words had already bought it when there is no evidence beyond that statement in their filing that they had.

He never cleared up that discrepancy.

....and today we still see the patent assigned to UNB....not Darkpulse.

If Darkpulse had actually bought the rights (with the patent ownership and assignment staying with UNB) then that is how it should have been disclosed.

And it’s not like there hasn’t been ample opportunity to correct the disclosure.

So people are free to believe whatever they like...but the FACT of the matter is that what DPLS says in its disclosures and what the USPTO database says are two different things.