I think she's trying to say specifically that patent rights are preserved in the U.S., because that's where U.S. patent law applies. Her dissent is brief and o

I think she's trying to say specifically that patent rights are preserved in the U.S., because that's where U.S. patent law applies. Her dissent is brief and only partial; and so I think she's only calling attention to a minor point that nonetheless has legal ramifications. Remember that the court's can also be to clarify the laws, and in this case, it seems to me that she took the opportunity to point out a gray area that might come up in the future. I see this "dissent" (if it can really be called that) as a footnote of sorts. "Watch out for these situations here", she's saying. It's not a political stance, but rather pointing out a technicality.