GlaxoSmithKline PLC presented a settlement aimed at keeping generic drugmakers from selling their versions of the antidepressant Wellbutrin XL arguing the drug fell under the U.S. Supreme Court’s prohibition on so-called reverse-payment arrangements that result in anti-competitive market effects.

David Sorensen, an attorney with Berger & Montague PC representing direct purchasers challenging GSK’s settlement, told a three-judge panel during oral arguments that a district court had granted summary judgment dismissing his case despite clear evidence that the deal delayed consumers from being able to purchase a lower-cost version of the drug.

The unusual settlement created questions over whether the deal could be considered anti-competitive under the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis which held that inducing parties to abandon patent claims, thereby eliminating the risk of patent invalidation or a finding of invalidity, could be considered an antitrust injury.

U.S. District Judge Mary McLaughlin, however, granted summary judgment in favor of GSK in September 2015.

Sorensen argued that Judge McLaughlin had ignored evidence that Anchen Pharmaceuticals, the first to file an application for a generic version of Wellbutrin XL and the plaintiff, had been independently negotiating a licensing deal that would’ve allowed the drug to go to market but that the talks had been swept aside with the unveiling of the GSK settlement.

Ballard Spahr LLP attorney Stephen Kastenberg responded for GSK that Judge McLaughlin’s decision was proper given what he said was a clear lack of evidence that there were any potentially fruitful licensing negotiations going on in the run-up to the settlement.

“There’s simply no evidence in the record to support that,” he said.

The panel took the case under advisement.

The case was argued for GSK by Stephen Kastenberg and Leslie John of Ballard Spahr LLP.