Whether an agency decision is arbitrary and capricious when it fails to justify a different result reached on saliently similar facts, but involving a different party?

“It is a fundamental principle of administrative law that agencies must treat like cases alike.” Grayscale Invs., LLC v. SEC , 82 F.4th 1239, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2023). Thus, in the D.C. Circuit, an agency decision that “[f]ail[s] to distinguish prior orders in similar cases” and “justify different results reached on similar facts” will be vacated. Id. at 1245 (citation omitted). The Federal Circuit, by contrast, does not require agencies to provide such an explanation except when the parties and the issues a re identical. In this case, the agency upheld two patents against a challenge brought by one bank, but invalidated the same patents against substantively the same challenge brought by a different bank. The question presented is as follows: Whether an agency decision is arbitrary and capricious when it fails to justify a different result reached on saliently similar facts, but involving a different party?