Why would Samsung expend the effort to argue the seemingly obvious concept that if the verdict is overturned, the awarded damages should be returned? Apple's p

Why would Samsung expend the effort to argue the seemingly obvious concept that if the verdict is overturned, the awarded damages should be returned? Apple's position appears to be standard, in claiming victory, and dismissing the possibility that any higher court will come to a different conclusion, thereby refusing to entertain that damages would _need_ to be returned. Under what circumstances would Apple be entitled to keep monetary damages, if, in fact, a higher court reverses the current decision?