There is absolutely no evidence that this is at all true. However, similar trends indicate that, given the right circumstances, Star Trek can be a mega blockbuster. If sparkly vampires can rake-in nearly $900 million, then there's no reason Trek can't double ST09's take if it really wanted to.
Nah, it's apples and oranges. Just as there's no evidence that what I say is true, there really is no evidence that it's not, and there are actually far more trends that point toward Star Trek as a brand never far exceeding this limit.
Probably the more apt comparison would be Star Wars though. Ever since those movies came out, Star Trek has never been able to get out of its shadow. And these two new movies are so much like Star Wars that it makes you wonder why they still can't hold a candle to it. The reason is likely because the brand is still held down by a stigma or that it's not something kids will enjoy. I'm not sure that's something that can be doctored up by Abrams any more than he already has. They've already put forth a pretty great effort, and reverting to throwing Borg or whatever at it isn't going to suddenly make things that much better.
I think their best shot at it was in 2009. It had everything going for it. It was the reboot, it had stylish new visuals, up and coming attractive youth actors, Leonard Nimoy passing the torch, JJ Abrams at the helm, etc. That was plenty of reason for anybody to go see a Star Trek film and lots of people did. It's often going to be difficult to rope people in for sequels no matter how much Khan or Borg or action you shovel into it. 2009 was the indicator of what Abrams Trek is capable of, more or less. It's not going to be radically greater than that, barring some fluke.