Maybe the question is whether Apple produced a New iPad (3) that was as up to date technically as they could while staying within their normal/established price point to the consumer and maintained their profit margin?
I suspect that this is what the court case is most likely to revolve around. If the prosecution could establish that Apple had held back features specifically to change it's refresh cycle and increased it's profit margin substantially over the 6 month period then they might have something to argue about.
I bet that Apple could easily prove that they built the best machine they could at the time and offered the update in November last year as they were in the position to offer the new chip at a price point that matched their profit margins. Maybe the chip just wasn't ready for showtime last march.
The downside for Apple is that every time they fight a case like this they run the risk of having to disclose more of their company policy, how decisions are made within the company and more financial and operational intelligence than they would normally choose to.
This certainly sounds like another speculative case dreamed up by a firm of solicitors who have found enough poor mugs to pay for them to try and make something out of nothing. I have friends who have dedicated their lives to protect the weak from flawed, costly legal systems throughout the world, I have friends who are corporate lawyers who protect their clients by giving sensible advice as to what course of action is in the clients best interests and have benefited from that advice. Just like any profession there seem to plenty of lawyers who are more interested in doing what is right for themselves, not the people who are paying for their services.