The aftermath of recent patents litigation between Broadcom and Qualcomm appears to be growing in acrimony. Broadcom won a jury verdict earlier this week and, in another case, Broadcom is accusing Qualcomm of concealing more than 35,000 incriminating documents.

The missing documents issue is expected to be taken up later by a federal district court; Broadcom also is expected to ask the judge to compel Qualcomm to pay Broadcom's millions of dollars in legal expenses. Earlier this week, a nine-member jury awarded Broadcom $19.6 million in damages in the patent infringement case.

"These [missing] documents show that witnesses were not telling the truth on the stand and that Qualcomm's attorneys were making arguments that these documents can prove were false," said David Rosmann, Broadcom's VP of intellectual property litigation, according to a report in the San Diego Union Tribune.

Qualcomm admits that the documents were withheld, but said their withholding was inadvertent and that the documents could have helped its case. Now Broadcom is seeking additional penalties against Qualcomm involving the withheld documents.

The case began in 2005 when Qualcomm filed patent infringement charges against Broadcom, claiming the latter company had violated its video-compression patents. The two companies have been involved in additional litigation, also bitter. Qualcomm has a substantial patent portfolio based on CDMA wireless technology. Broadcom also has a large patent portfolio.

Broadcom, initially focused on semiconductor development, has been branching out recently. On Thursday, the company announced that it would beef up its cellular design center in Taiwan to expand the development of Microsoft Windows Mobile smart phones.

Much of the work at the Broadcom Taiwan design center will center on the company's recently announced BCM2153 HSPA processor, a single chip device that integrates multimedia and 3G modem processing.

Editor's note: This story was modified at 1:15 p.m. to make it clearer that the missing document issue is part of a different court case than the one that was decided earlier in the week.