I don't think the lawsuit has merit as the programme wasn't broadcast in the U.S. and even so, there has been previously been a lot of different takes on the January 6th violent insurrection, so it seems very unlikely to have made any difference to people's opinions of Trump. Also, I believe that for U.S. defamation, there has to be malicious intention proven which is very unlikely for the BBC case (seems more like a misguided edit rather than being deliberately slanderous).
I do wonder what would happen if the case goes ahead and is decided in Trump's favour - would the BBC refuse to pay and just ensure that none of their employees go to the U.S.?
As an aside, Trump has said that the BBC "Literally, they put words in my mouth. They had me saying things that I never said coming out.” which is blatantly a lie - they merely edited his words to bring together two distinct sentences in a misleading manner.
For the record, despite enjoying some of the BBC's output, I do find their journalistic integrity to be lacking - I've raised numerous complaints over the years to do with their atrocious RTC reporting - they always seem to be pushing motornormativity with their selection of passive voicing for drivers whilst demonising cyclists.